how are we all equal?

[shorelinetrance]

anyone who's ever dabbled in biology knows that everyone is not born equal, some are smarter and some are stronger, so why should the smart and strong have to be subjected to a society that is based around equality (see mediocrity).

i've read all this archaic political theory and it's never really addressed how some humans are just superior to other human beings.

I've always just thought that leftist ideologies, treat everyone the same, regardless of intelligence/strength, did i just answer my own question? :lol:

hope to see some replies to clear this up!

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've always just thought that leftist ideologies, treat everyone the same, regardless of intelligence/strength, did i just answer my own question? :lol:
thats pretty much it i think. i dont think any theory can scientifically prove that were all "equal". i dont think "equality" really even exists, its just how humans decide to treat each other that makes us all "equal"

[trivas7]

hope to see some replies to clear this up!
Marx would say we are equal as human beings in that all participate equally in our species-being (that really helps!?).

Um, was that the question? :rolleyes:

[Annie K.]

why should the smart and strong have to be subjected to a society that is based around equalityBecause like most humans, the smart and strong are able to understand what is best for them. Strength and intelligence don't make domination more enjoyable, nor does any social discrimination benchmark.
Huh... I'm really not sure of my use of the word 'benchmark'. Anyone here know how "critère de discrimination sociale" can be translated in english ?

[shorelinetrance]

Strength and intelligence don't make domination more enjoyable, nor does any social discrimination benchmark.

the smart and the strong are the ones doing the dominating most of the time.

[Annie K.]

No... Most of the time the dominating position is inherited. But even heirs don't find much pleasure in their status. They find comfort, but comfort is frustrating.

The socialist progress is also a progress for the disappearing ruling class.

[NoArch]

Nobody is the same or equal. There are heaps of differences amongst people that make them different which means they have different needs, different wants and different ways of doing things.

Everybody should be treated respectfully but to say everyone is totally the same is quite ridiculous.

[Dros]

You misunderstand the leftist notion of equality. We aren't denying the existence of variation or saying that everyone is the same, we are saying that the method of social organization needs to serve everyone.

[gla22]

The smart and the strong shouldn't make everyone their slaves, everyone should have equal social rights in other words. No racism ect.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You misunderstand the leftist notion of equality. We aren't denying the existence of variation or saying that everyone is the same, we are saying that the method of social organization needs to serve everyone.

Indeed. As far as economic inequality in contemporary bourgeois "democracies"..the "prosperity gap" as it stands now is hardly a proper reflection of the level of inequality.
So just remember that we aren't all necessarily equal, but what must be made equal is everyone's opportunity to contribute to society and live in modest or reasonable conditions.
Tony Blair may be bourgeois in his reactionary stance on war in the middle east and such, but he couldn't have been more right when he said of Socialism:

"It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly."

This is, of course, assuming that "individuality" refers not to alienation and perpetual competition between workers led by members of the ruling class, but "individuality" in the sense that equal economic circumstances allow us to see the true potential of each individual worker through the elimination of this factor which would otherwise bring disparity of opportunities.

If that made no sense, think of it as everyone running an uphill race at their own pace but starting from the same elevation.

[Decolonize The Left]

Annie K:

Anyone here know how "critère de discrimination sociale" can be translated in english ?
Yes. I would translate it as: the criteria for social discrimination. Hence I would edit your sentence to: "Strength and intelligence don't make domination more enjoyable, nor does any criteria for social discrimination."
Side-note: A 'benchmark' is a form of criteria.

Onto the original question.

As it has been mentioned, no two human beings are scientifically equal. As far as I understand, equality is used in terms of value. While all individuals are different, all are equal in the following sense:
1) I am a free agent.
2) I am like others in the sense that I am a human being. In other words, I am symmetrical in my freedom.
3) I share this planet with all others. In other words, my freedom is mutual.
4) I am responsible for my actions given that all actions affect all others in some way. In other words, my freedom is reciprocal.

Hence, I am equal to all other humans beings in the sense that my freedom is dependent upon their freedom given the three conditions of symmetry, mutuality, and reciprocity. This means only the following: given that my freedom is shared with all, all are equal in that freedom. What follows from this is that all human beings are equal in terms of their value as such human beings. Each is valuable in and of themselves. The more materialist among us will phrase this as 'conditions of circumstance,' or perhaps some other wording - but this is how I choose to frame it.

- August

[shorelinetrance]

nice posts guys, pretty much what i thought already with some further lucidity.

[Foldered]

I see it as even though we may not be born as physically or mentally equal humans, as a society, we should be socially treated as such.

[A New Era]

I think a lot of people here got it all wrong.

When leftists talk about equality, we basically mean that everyone should belong to the same class, that there shall be no oppressors and no oppressed. It means we would for the most part have the same relations to the means of production, in addition to equal rights, of course.

[ckaihatsu]

"Equality" itself is an abstract, bourgeois term that has almost no significance for the proletariat.

How people treat each other on a day-to-day basis could be anything -- getting into the codification of "correct" behavior for everyday living is to be moralistic, or religious, or psychological.

That said, the state should -- and to some degree, does -- have an interest in human welfare, hence the system of punishments for wanton harm done to others -- though hardly enforced equitably under capitalism, of course.

*That* said, the working class, or labor, has an interest in how the state functions in regards to human welfare -- hence the need for a worldwide permanent revolution of labor.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[trivas7]

"Equality" itself is an abstract, bourgeois term that has almost no significance for the proletariat.

Don't know re yours but my fellow laborers use the term "equality" all the time. Class-qualifying ordinary English is merely stupidity.


How people treat each other on a day-to-day basis could be anything -- getting into the codification of "correct" behavior for everyday living is to be moralistic, or religious, or psychological.

I don't know re you, but I value politeness and civility over crassness and disrepect any day.

[ckaihatsu]

Don't know re yours but my fellow laborers use the term "equality" all the time.


Yes, absolutely. It's a useful term, but only when used in a context. The reason I wrote "'equality' itself" is because the term, when used alone, outside of any context, becomes virtually meaningless. It's abstract terms like these that sound good, and so they're thrown around in vague ways, for politicians' marketing purposes.



Class-qualifying ordinary English is merely stupidity.


Since you've identified yourself as a laborer, and you're posting to a revolutionary leftist discussion board, I think it's safe to say that you are class conscious. The term 'equality' has much more meaning in a class context, wouldn't you agree?



I don't know re you, but I value politeness and civility over crassness and disrepect any day.


Most people would agree with you, and I agree with you.

[ckaihatsu]

I also have to add that there are instances where politeness and civility would be *inappropriate* treatments of persons, though, I agree, under normal circumstances politeness and civility are usually appropriate.

[Annie K.]

The term 'equality' has much more meaning in a class contextWhat is that meaning ?


Also, politeness and civility are appropriate under normal cicumstances, but these circumstances are what we fight against...
I'm polite only when i have no choice, I respect only people who force me to. The relationnal system based on the exchange of signs of recognition is now only a way to compensate the insertion in human relations of the frustrations and humiliations producted by the daily activities.

[Foldered]

What is that meaning ?
The abolishment of "class." Upper, Middle, and Lower class are constructs of a capitalist society.

[Annie K.]

Hm. For that I personally use the expression "abolition of the class-based society". The use of the word equality in this particular context seems to me really imprecise as it actually allow the confusion with the bourgeois concept of legal equality.

In fact, I would consider that equality is a term definitively linked to the building of advanced capitalist states which, when used with a revolutionnary perspective, is just a testimony of the cultural domination of the classes who already benefit from the legal equality.

[ckaihatsu]

What is that meaning ?


Intersecting 'equality' with 'class' gives us the reality that the classes are not equal, nor should they be -- as of now the capitalist class is dominant, with a vastly disproportionate share of society's surplus wealth. Labor, on the other hand, *should* be dominant over capital, but isn't. Labor is ultimately at the basis of everything of value to people -- with capital being just the accumulation of past labor -- and yet labor doesn't even receive its proportionate share of the rewards for the proportion of value that it contributes to an enterprise. (By comparison, animals do not work to produce a cache of surplus.)



Also, politeness and civility are appropriate under normal cicumstances, but these circumstances are what we fight against...


I *think* I understand your meaning here, Annie, but I am not quite sure -- could you be more specific as to *what* circumstances you're speaking of?



I'm polite only when i have no choice, I respect only people who force me to. The relationnal system based on the exchange of signs of recognition is now only a way to compensate the insertion in human relations of the frustrations and humiliations producted by the daily activities.


You do sound *very* frustrated -- I'm sorry to hear of your condition. I hope things will get better for you....

[Annie K.]

Intersecting 'equality' with 'class' gives us the reality that the classes are not equal, nor should they beIt is already given by the meaning of 'class' itself.


Labor is ultimately at the basis of everything of value to peopleProduction is. Labor is temporarily at the basis of everything of value to people, as long as our lives tend to be reduced to their economical aspect.

could you be more specific as to *what* circumstances you're speaking of? library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/36

I am very frustrated indeed, as most of the people I know. Those who refuse to interpret their frustations as the shameful results of individual failures are revolutionnaries.

_______________________
I'm crypto-situ and i'm proud !

[ckaihatsu]

It is already given by the meaning of 'class' itself.


(Well, you asked.)



Production is. Labor is temporarily at the basis of everything of value to people, as long as our lives tend to be reduced to their economical aspect.


If we use a very general definition of labor, meaning any intellectual, emotional, or physical effort, then my original statement holds up. Production is the manufacturing- (or service-)oriented commodification of labor into an economic definition.



library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/36


Thanks -- the abstract of the article speaks to the stress we feel by being depersonalized by the dominant, commodity-oriented social paradigm. Fortunately not *all* social interactions are mediated this way, but I agree that the uglier side will tend to creep in if we don't assert our humanity and individuality, constantly.



I am very frustrated indeed, as most of the people I know. Those who refuse to interpret their frustations as the shameful results of individual failures are revolutionnaries.


Yeah, we're all in the machine anyway, so it's pointless (and irrational) to ascribe results to a sole participant in what is ultimately a grander social scheme...!

[Annie K.]

True.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hm. For that I personally use the expression "abolition of the class-based society". The use of the word equality in this particular context seems to me really imprecise as it actually allow the confusion with the bourgeois concept of legal equality.

In fact, I would consider that equality is a term definitively linked to the building of advanced capitalist states which, when used with a revolutionnary perspective, is just a testimony of the cultural domination of the classes who already benefit from the legal equality.

Here you have rightly differentiated "legal equality" from "class equality." But note that the former requires laws to exist, and the latter requires classes. The third, or rather first, form of equality is equality based on nothing more than the conditions for inter-personal relationships. It is, plain and simple, equality. I described it in my first post, but will re-post here because I feel as though it deserves attention as it has been lost amidst the clarificatory responses:


Onto the original question.

As it has been mentioned, no two human beings are scientifically equal. As far as I understand, equality is used in terms of value. While all individuals are different, all are equal in the following sense:
1) I am a free agent.
2) I am like others in the sense that I am a human being. In other words, I am symmetrical in my freedom.
3) I share this planet with all others. In other words, my freedom is mutual.
4) I am responsible for my actions given that all actions affect all others in some way. In other words, my freedom is reciprocal.

Hence, I am equal to all other humans beings in the sense that my freedom is dependent upon their freedom given the three conditions of symmetry, mutuality, and reciprocity. This means only the following: given that my freedom is shared with all, all are equal in that freedom. What follows from this is that all human beings are equal in terms of their value as such human beings. Each is valuable in and of themselves. The more materialist among us will phrase this as 'conditions of circumstance,' or perhaps some other wording - but this is how I choose to frame it.

- August

[ckaihatsu]

- The legal system is premised on class society.

- "Class equality" is an artificial formulation that would be impossible in reality -- the point of a workers' revolution is to dominate over the capitalist class so as to eliminate it and leave only the class of laborers. At that point, with no contending class against it, class society would cease to exist, by definition.