| On just equality |
 |
 |
| Written by Ianko Stoianov |
| Saturday, 27 September 2008 20:14 |
|
On just equality
Hegel claims repeatedly in his works that in his time, in the beginning of the XIX century ? unlike their predecessors, the ancient oriental nations who knew that only one, the despot, is free and the ancient Greeks and Romans who knew that only some are free, not man as such, ? the German nations know that absolutely all men (man as man) are free; they attain the consciousness that man as such is free, that man as man, is born free. However, Hegel fails to examine closely to what extent his contemporaries are actually free; he is neither interested in the sufferings, the economic privation and injustice, the toil and ruthless exploitation, subject to which is the proletariat of his time, nor in the fact that the poor classes are totally deprived of political freedom and public happiness. Hegel attains the knowledge that the History of the world presents nothing else but the progress of the consciousness of Freedom, that the state in-and-for-itself is the ethical whole, the actualisation of freedom; he goes on to say that the state is the march of God in the world ? the state is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. Superbly said and true indeed! Nonetheless, it is absolutely insufficient as well. The reason is simple: never was justice a central category in his teaching as it used to be for Plato, Jesus Christ and Karl Marx ? the greatest world-historical teachers of humanism of all time. Hegel?s freedom is poor in determinations; this is unacceptable. The genuinely absolute final end of the rational will, which realises itself in the course of World history, is not simply freedom but just freedom ? it is invariably present in the powerful and energetic will of the people for it is the only guarantee of their dignity. Only justice makes freedom, equality and brotherhood truly corresponding to the ends of rational will; otherwise, they are extremely vague, undetermined and subject to arbitrary interpretations, misrepresentation and misunderstanding. It is the highest form of rational will; it pushes and will invariably push the intellect and the will of the nations to overcome and abolish all obscurantist dictatorial regimes and exploiting social systems. Only then what is just is ethical and, vice versa, what is ethical is just and humane. The supreme volitions and desires of all world-historical nations for humanism and just freedom are a manifestation of the eternally self-realising rational humanist will; at each stage of its development it introduces some new elements of equality amongst the people and the highest determinations, which it gives to itself and wills to achieve in the course of its development towards universal equality are and will always be realised. The nations have a will for just freedom ? it is the absolute final end, which they aim at; they will this volition, know it as something realisable and irresistibly realise it. The Humanists have been tremendously interested in justice since ancient times. It is exactly the overpowering volition for justice that pushes Plato to create the first communist doctrine; it is a great merit of Plato?s philosophy that he makes justice the highest virtue in his res publica. It is the same infinite desire of rational will, which pushes all other great teachers of humanism and all humanistically thinking and willing people to continue Plato?s immortal deed. Aristotle, whose profound ideas of justice and its definitions are inspiring, is one of them. He claims that ?Since in every art and science the end aimed at is always good, so particularly in this, which is the most excellent of all, the founding of civil society, the good wherein aimed at is justice; for it is this which is for the benefit of all. Now, it is the common opinion, that justice is a certain equality; and in this point all the philosophers are agreed when they treat of morals: for they say what is just, and to whom; and that equals ought to receive equal.?1 Only a majority which fully respects and applies the principle of just equality can rule justly for the common good of all and constitute the power of a society of the politically equal; only it can constitute just political equality. As Aristotle puts it, the power must be equal amongst the equal and the similar, i.e. amongst those who are equally virtuous. Like Plato, Aristotle also considers justice and especially just equality to be the most important notion in politovolia, in the political actuality and theory of state. Hegel must have been so profoundly influenced by the prejudices of his time that he devotes Aristotle only three and a half pages in his history of philosophy and does not pay any attention to Aristotle?s definition of just equality at all ? a category, to which Aristotle must have dedicated a lot of time and careful examination for he develops it in a magnificent way. The best sons of humanity have always been doing and will continue to do that; they feel the needs and the volitions of their time and powerfully willing the will of their time, they develop the determinations of just will for equality, fraternity and liberty in each historical epoch. Not only does Aristotle points out the revolutionising power of equality claiming that ?Everywhere inequality is a cause of revolution, but an inequality in which there is no proportion ? for instance, a perpetual monarchy among equals; and always it is the desire of equality which rises in rebellion,?2 but he also conscientiously presents the views of his contemporaries, who knew that to entrust all powers to all is in the spirit of a democracy, for the people aim at equality. According to Aristotle: ?It is also the genius of a city to be composed as much as possible of equals; which will be most so when the inhabitants are in the middle state: from whence it follows, that that city must be best framed which is composed of those whom we say are naturally its proper members.?3 The rational desire of humanity for just equality has always been and will continue to be concrete; without question, it deserves to be meticulously examined and developed because of its extraordinary importance. All the more that the enemies of equality instantly bring it to its abstraction, and ? as Hegel does, ? claim that ?the principle of equality, logically carried out, rejects all differences, and thus allows no sort of political condition to exist? for ?with the state there arises inequality, the difference of governing powers and of governed, magistracies, authorities, directories, etc.? True, Hegel has every right to say that ?Liberty and Equality are the simple rubrics into which is frequently concentrated what should form the fundamental principle, the final aim and result of the constitution. However true this is, the defect of these terms is their utter abstractness: if stuck to in this abstract form, they are principles which either prevent the rise of the concreteness of the state, i.e. its articulation into a constitution and a government in general, or destroy them.?4 No epoch, however, has ever understood equality in its abstract form. Aristotle and his contemporaries, for example, attain the knowledge that absolute equality of rights in the highest world of politics, in which people act as citizens, not as private persons, is of enormous importance for the public happiness of man, as well as for the power of the state and the best possible life of its citizens: ?The members of an association have necessarily some one thing the same and common to all, in which they share equally or unequally for example, food or land or any other thing. But where there are two things of which one is a means and the other an end, they have nothing in common except that the one receives what the other produces... A state is not a community of living beings only, but a community of equals, aiming at the best life possible.?5 The central question of the world will has always been how to make just equality compatible with freedom. The ancient Greeks were the first to start searching for the supreme principle of the will for a truly just state order; according to Aristotle ?The only firm state is that where every one enjoys that equality he has a right to and fully possesses what is his own.?6 For the ancient Greeks the will for justice is the highest determination of the state; it is the source of the highest ethical standards of the political community. Aristotle knew superbly that just equality is a substantial moment of the state: ?it is evident that for many reasons it is necessary that all in their turns should both govern and be governed: for it is just that those who are equal should have everything alike; and it is difficult for a state to continue which is founded in injustice.?7 We have to tell the enemies of equality that people have always known and accepted equality in its rational form, according to which they differ from one another by their talents, intellectual and physical abilities, by the power of their will, etc., i.e. people have always accepted inequality as something that goes without saying. Wise and free people are not envious; they have always acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge the fact that people are also unequal by nature, that their social status and duties are unequal. However, their wise Will has always aimed at rational and just equality as a sine qua non for public happiness. Being an expression of the ends of the absolute rational will indeed, each body politic, each state, is the absolutely necessary manifestation of the profound, infinitely powerful unity of opposites ? of equality and inequality by the way; neither of them can be absolutely excluded. What does matter is which one is dominating in the life of a given political community. State orders which promote the total dominance of the moment of inequality ? the enormous power of exploiting, predatory and greedy classes are not and cannot be just and stable. Only states which strengthen the moment of just equality are states of a humanist type and promote the principles of true political freedom and public happiness. The total political freedom of the members of a political community is possible only when it carries out into practice the principle of just equality: ?The foundation of a democratic state is liberty, and people have been accustomed to say this as if here only liberty was to be found; for they affirm that this is the end proposed by every democracy. But one part of liberty is to govern and be governed alternately; for, according to democratic justice, equality is measured by numbers, and not by worth: and this being just, it is necessary that the supreme power should be vested in the people at large; and that what the majority determine should be final.?8 The will for freedom has always aimed and will aim at absolute equality of rights. The will of the people for sovereignty and just equality is as old as the world; in no way is it an invention of the modern civilisation. This will must manifest itself and always manifests itself with equal power in every political community. It is noteworthy that being an aristocrat, Tocqueville, one of the finest intellects of the XIX century, also examined the question of just equality better than Hegel. Despite the fact that all members of his class and he personally lost all their privileges as a result of the Great French Revolution, his standpoint ? based, without question, on his rich historical experience and life wisdom ? is notable and at the same time admirable for he praises the will for equality as absolutely invincible and implacably realising itself in history. This wise man is reconciled with the fate of his class, he puts up stoically with the verdict of history. In his great work Democracy in America he superbly expresses his understanding that ?The gradual development of the principle of equality is, therefore, a providential fact. It has all the chief characteristics of such a fact: it is universal, it is lasting, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as well as all men contribute to its progress.?9 This powerful mind perceives the fact that ?equality of condition is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived? and makes it the central point of his teaching. According to him it is equality that suggests the human mind the idea of the indefinite perfectibility of man. Like Aristotle, he attains the standpoint that inequality invariably leads to revolution and, what is more, that the great democratic revolution is permanent and invincible. The Great French Revolution is caused by the insurmountable will of the French oppressed classes to abolish the countless privileges of the aristocratic society and its unquenchable will for class inequality; his knowledge about this fact is perfect. He discovers ?the prodigious influence that? the general equality of condition among the people ?exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.?10 The only mistake this great man makes is that he writes only for equality as such. It is astonishing that he speaks about equality in general terms only. The so called equality of conditions, which he writes so much about, is a remarkable but dark and vague category; he fails to examine the nature of inequality in great detail. He witnesses the abolition of the having enormous privileges aristocracy and the victorious march of the bourgeoisie, which crushes, throws away the aristocracy at the dump of history only to take totally and ruthlessly its place on the historical stage and build a society of bourgeois inequality. There is no doubt whatsoever that had Tocqueville paid much more attention to this fact, his contribution to the development of the will for just equality would have been far greater. Nonetheless, Tocqueville comprehends the world in its truth: equality is and will invariably be the central theme of the political debates and the centre of all political events. The Will for equality implacably marches towards its great end ever expanding the sphere of actual equality of conditions. Believing in the irreversible course of history towards democracy, he goes on to say further that it is precisely because of the fact that the permanent will for just equality is greedily desired, it causes time and time again its eternal revolution for democracy, which wins and overcomes all kinds of social injustice in the course of so many centuries past and coming, and sweeps away all political principles, unethical laws and everything that dares to make a stand against equality. Tocqueville comes to the conclusion that ?If the men of our time should be convinced, by attentive observation and sincere reflection, that the gradual and progressive development of social equality is at once the past and the future of their history, this discovery alone would confer upon the change the sacred character of a divine decree. To attempt to check democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence.?11 The great energy, which the true, not just pretended present democracy has, mobilises the energetic will of the citizens through their egalitarian passions. People are always pushed by an ever bigger passion for equality; Tocqueville attains this consciousness. Today the Humanists say that it is precisely the contemporary political proletariat that is a bearer of the passion of will for just equality and just freedom. Only the humanist state constitutes complete freedom and attains just equality for it creates conditions in which the complete political freedom as much equalises the members of the state as true equality genuinely frees them. However, the Humanists are not Utopians. They reject all kinds of abstract interpretations of the category of equality in the material sense of the word, according to which all people have to possess equal ? absolutely equal ? material goods; they support its volitional meaning as an equal right of expression and manifestation of their will. Of course, just equality has nothing to do with the barren equalisation which Marx was in favour of claiming that ?From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs? is the highest ethical principle of communism; it was a great mistake of Marx to point out that this principle has anything to do with the true principles of human nature. In fact, it is exactly this principle that is to blame for the failure of Marxism; being in total disagreement with the principles of the absolute rational will of God, it is highly utopian and against the genuinely fundamental volitional principles of human nature. Marx must have been under the influence of the utopian socialists and communists, with whom his epoch was absolutely naturally so abundant. Unfortunately for Marx, they all were Utopians and rejected just equality ? equality by merits, value, virtue and dignity. The true principle of rational will, which humanity has always respected and will never cease to respect as an utterly just principle of equality by value and dignity, is ?From each according to his abilities, to each according to his merits and contributions,? i.e. Man has always known that just equality is at the same time just inequality. The fact that just equality is the main feature of democracy does not mean that fortunes must be equal. Of course not! However, in no way can the differences be enormous; for inequality is only possible as total unjust domination, never-ending state violence and suppression of the pro-humanist democracy movements of the proletariat by the selfish and infinitely greedy class of the rich, whose aim has been well known for centuries: theft of private property and surplus value, which rightfully belong to the proletariat and the people?s humanist state. Capitalists aims at mastering more and more rights for themselves, in other words, they aim at making the principle of inequality the supreme principle of the bourgeois state order. Unlike Tocqueville, who is only interested in equality, the huge advantage of Marx is that he is interested in just equality and, concretely speaking, in abolition of private property of capitalist type, which entitles the members of the Bourgeoisie to appropriate the surplus value of the products manufactured in a capitalist economy; this is the source of unjust inequality enslaving the other classes. It is a great merit of Marx?s teaching that he sees the liberation of the proletariat as only possible through abolition of of the principle of private property of exploiting capitalist type and, therefore, through abolition of the theft of surplus value; however, he fails to go beyond it. He inspired the movement towards just equality but he examined just equality in an absolutely abstract way; no wonder that he failed to point out how it is to be achieved. Never did he examine the question of the economic and political institutions in a state aiming at an res publica of just equality, fraternity and freedom. He left the task to be solved by his followers. Unfortunately, they had neither the power of his intellect nor his pure unselfish will for humanism; they created the totalitarian Red Bourgeoisie, whose deeds were utterly anti-humanist. The Neo-Communist Manifesto aims at revealing the principle of humanism and discovers it in the common good. We have to do our homework and learn our lesson: the task is crystal clear ? creating a humanist society, which governs itself and gives every member of the community an equal right to participate in the rule of the country together with all other members; everyone is an authentic representative of the sovereign will of the nation. The steadfast implementation of the principle of just equality in economy and politics based on the absolute equality of rights of all people to participate both in the economic processes and the political life of the country will continue to be in the centre of the political fights of the future. Possessing an equal right to come into possession of the common good ? res publica, ? is a sine qua non for building a truly humanist society. Only a state, a political community, whose constitution is based on the principle of common good can be called humanistic. Just equality can only exist in a social order, which acknowledges and defends the principle of private property of humanistic type; a social order, in which nobody?s property is robbed and which assures genuine equality in the eye of the law. It must be mentioned here that the Humanists will to achieve far more than the pathetic direct democracy proposed by its contemporary supporters. The Humanists want all members of the political community to take into genuine possession of res publica, a res publica which is truly ruled by the people, for the people and through the people. There is no denying of the fact that the movement for direct democracy got it wrong the reason being that they do not question the very institution of private property of capitalist type, which is the supreme reason for modern pseudo-democracy. Direct democracy ? as its ideologues propose it ? is absolutely insufficient to change significantly the present dominating kind of pseudo-representative democracy for their vision is still not enlightened enough to change the supreme principle of pseudo-democracy: the principle of private property of capitalist type ? a principle, which leads to privatisation of the public good. Referenda, petitions and all other forms of direct democracy as being propagated now by direct democracy activists are still within the frames of a state based on private property of capitalist type only. The great mistake of today?s supporters of direct democracy is that they do not want to go beyond modern capitalism ? i.e. a political system based on the principle of private property of capitalist type. They do not examine the axis, the fundamental principle of the capitalist system ? the principle of private property. What they should aim at is a political system which is not only based on the balance of public and public property but also preserves the superiority, the primacy of public property as absolutely necessary. Direct democracy, as it is proposed by its supporters nowadays, is still an idea, which is insufficiently fruitful to solve the problems of modern societies for their idea is still deprived of a truly higher principle having in itself the absolute ends of the actual and, therefore, being capable of refuting the principle of private property of capitalist type, capable of leading to abolition of capitalism and transformation of the world based on its unethical principles and, therefore, leading to the newest unconditionally necessary humanist revolution of the world. Direct democracy activists ignore the fact that in each epoch the rich accumulate their wealth owing to the fact that they rob their workers of their property, owing to the total cynical appropriating of the surplus product and, therefore, owing to the theft of the labour of their slaves, serfs or workers, whose private property ? the manufactured product ? ?legally and ethically? becomes a property of one or of some. This has tremendous consequences for the development of humanity because due to the expropriation of the private and public property of the other classes, the rich acquire an enormous power over the society and its political life. Give them your surplus labour and you will gain your masters: you will concentrate in their hands the total political and economic power given by God to all people, to whom belong the sacred and indivisible sovereignty and genuine democracy, and not only to some as it is the case in oligarchy even if it is disguised as democratic oligarchy. You vow to accept your political non-existence and political ?action? on the day of sham parliamentary elections masqueraded as democratic and free. Understand the nature of capitalist ?democracy,? in which only symbolically the power belongs to the people; the truth is that the people do not possess it even on the day of parliamentary elections. Not for a single moment does it cease to be a property of their oligarchic masters. The supporters of direct democracy ignore the very nature of capitalism; they are not true Humanists. They cannot or do not want to see the truth that when the capital was invented and the ?machine? for money, which make money for the capitalists started its action, the perpetuum mobile of capitalism was created; it used to give and still gives to one man or a group of people the total right of ownership both over the means of production as well as the surplus value and the profits, and consequently, it leads to their coming into possession of the public property ? res publica. Direct democracy cannot exist in a capitalist society. A humanist society is a sine qua non for a genuine direct democracy. Modern proletarians, as long as you allow the capitalist class to expropriate ? to alienate you ? from the product of your labour, it will manipulate and brainwash you. If you do not wish to remain slaves of the capitalists, do not let them continue to rob you of your private and public property. Take it away from them and their fabulous fortunes will cease to exist. Do not give them the power to steal the product of your labour and your private property and their royal fortunes will disappear and you will be free men and women. The nobility of the ideologues of the Great French Revolution, who raised the idea of equality, fraternity and freedom, is astonishing; they were genuine humanists. However, never have the French Bourgeoisie wanted to create a just world of fraternity; in absolute compliance with its predatory nature, the Bourgeoisie has always treated the idea of fraternity as an empty slogan and one of its many cynical and shameless lies. The idea of fraternity served its wolfish class will ideally and has never been anything else but a means for brainwashing and a master manipulation of the poor and downtrodden masses of the people and winning over them. That is the reason why the idea of equality, fraternity and freedom was the first victim of the French revolution. The bourgeoisie wills to create and invariably creates a world of greed and exploitation of man by man; the capitalist society has always been and until its very end will invariably be an arena of the fight of private interests, of all against all. Fortunately, this is only a Pyrrhic victory. Capitalism is not eternal. Humanism will win: the will for justice is eternally alive. The ideologues of the Great French Revolution are definitely worthy of admiring because for the first time in human history they clearly realise and make the true principles of political rational will ? for Equality, Fraternity and Liberty, ? principles of the practical universal will; something to which all previous epochs aimed at vaguely. They pointed out that Equality, Fraternity and Liberty are the absolute political ends of Man: every advance of the equalisation, of the political and economic total equality of rights, is at the same time, an advance in the liberation of Man. For this reason the days of capitalism are counted; the people will continue to liberate themselves. Nowadays the Humanists once again raise the slogan of the Great French Revolution ? Equality, Fraternity, Liberty. However, we propose them in their highest humanistic form as we know it today: EQUALITY ? True equality only exists when everyone is in possession of the product, which he creates and everyone possesses public property, i.e. real total equality of rights to participate in political life as a source of public happiness. In a humanist society the existence of persons without capital and public property is illegitimate. Marx said in his day that in the conditions of the capitalist wage system the means of production employ the workers, while in the conditions of a humanist society, the workers, as subjects, employ the means of production in order to produce wealth for themselves. FRATERNITY ? The principle of humanism, which teaches us not to treat Man as ?a means? only, but as ?an end in itself,? can only be carried out into the economic and political practice of a humanist society; a society, in which nobody has the right to treat people as things or objects but as subjects only. Only in humanist societies the idea of fraternity can and will be realised. LIBERTY ? Only the people?s sovereignty can be a guarantee of public freedom. The Big Bourgeoisie aim at coming into possession of unlimited power. Only the people aim at liberty for there is nothing else on Earth which is infinitely more important than liberty; it is the highest kind of public property of the people. Now the self-determining world will wants to set the beginning of a new degree of its development. Always willing to be at itself and aiming at uniting in its world with itself alone, not only has the world will attained the knowledge of its ends for the nearest necessary stage of that development and the actions, which has to be undertaken in so as to archive the ends of its development but as ever it will apply its whole energy to carry them out into practice. A decisive implementation of the principle of private property of humanistic type will lead to implementation of the true universality of the principle of humanism, i.e. will constitute a society of true communism, in which the economic and political freeing of man will be a fact. Man as such, man as rational will has the right to enjoy equality, fraternity and liberty as well as the duty to fight for them. Only the abolition of the theft of surplus value will lead to genuine freedom and just equality on the base of private property of humanist type; the liberation of Man from his contemporary slavery is yet to come. The emancipation of the contemporary proletariat is definitely the task of the world will in the nearest future. Yet, equality is not only about economics. What matters in creating a more egalitarian society is not total and unconditional equality of incomes as it is often understood: equality of incomes, which places constraints on freedom and removes incentives. No, not at all! The crucial ends of a humanistic society are equality of public opportunities ? greater equality of rewards, status, and privileges ? as well as abolition of exploitation, which is a sine qua non for classlessness. The Will for just equality has and will continue to have a great role to play in human history; it has been revolutionising and will continue to revolutionise the world.
NOTES:
|