What can we say now about Equality, a concept increasingly neglected and discarded not only by the representatives of domination, but by the majority who now prefer not to think about it.
Thinking about equality means confronting a host of seemingly contradictory issues, some of which can only be seen as insoluble in the pseudo-society that capitalism has built for us, since its central foundation necessarily implies inequality.
And yet, in France in particular, this word, emptied of all content, still hangs on the pediments of a number of official buildings that are supposed to represent that other phantom, the Republic (the people as king).
It’s worth noting in passing how accustomed we’ve become to a large number of terms, tossed around in all directions but always in vain by our professional politicians and their media relays, literally no longer making sense.
And the more vigorously these conceptual scarecrows are shaken into the harangue, the less we can hope to discover the slightest meaning and, above all, the slightest application. As in the Novlangue so well anticipated by George Orwell in his “1984”, it is rather their opposites that we must constantly observe in these applications.
Equality, then. Even dictionaries are very evasive on the subject, preferring to confine themselves to mathematics, but cautiously all the same. Preferring to preserve a kind of uncertainty principle.
Yes, but what does equality really mean if we stick to what directly concerns our human reality? In what ways can we be equal? In what ways are we not?
And, above all, what are the circumstances in which this can be envisaged lucidly and, on the other hand, those in which it can only remain in the limbo of illusion, where in fact there can be no serious question of it.
To justify the glaring inequalities of the contemporary world, those who are satisfied with them most often evoke “merit”. And it is indisputable that there are certain categories of individuals who, having made possession (having) their sole horizon, demonstrate astonishing prowess and ability in their capacity to “make money” and accumulate it. And that the means they use matter little in the end. It’s all about the dough.
Nor can we deny that in the “society” we’re currently offered, money is the only thing that counts, and that the only truly cardinal sin is to be poor in that sense.
Obviously, this state of affairs creates, both locally and globally, a very unhealthy situation, rotten to say the least, but one that is experienced daily by the majority of people. In fact, it’s quite realistic to speak of an irremediable insecurity which, under these conditions, can only be perpetuated and, in all likelihood, accentuated to the worst over time.
But let’s get back to the vocabulary, the language used, which is now so inconsistent: merit, ability, value, wealth, poverty, society, justice, security, inequality, equality.
What are we talking about?
A stubborn confusion with the notion of equality stubbornly confuses inequality with difference, reducing equality to uniformity. And yet, while we unambiguously reject inequality, we loudly demand difference. As Murray Bookchin put it: “We fight against the inequality of equals and for the equality of unequals”. In other words, a society of different and differentiated beings, but with the same possibilities for development and fulfillment, and an irreducible minimum for each and every one, in a highly cooperative, self-help society.
Translated by TerKo with the help of a free translation tool.
Rebonds:
- “HOSPITALITY” – A primer on social ecology
- On hospitality – For a shared world
- EQUALITY in the anarchist encyclopedia
[…] “EQUALITY” – Social Ecology ABC […]