Egalite

There is an idea that I have been mulling around for some time now. Unfortunately, I am not so sure what is right.

The great ideological conflict today has three aspects: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern. Drawing the line between pre-modern and modern is fairly easy. I believe that we could, without a whole lot of controversy, say that Hobbes and Locke are the fathers of Modernity. The line between Modern and post modern is a little hazier. Perhaps it is Hegel, perhaps Rousseau, however the real birth of post-modern though is definitely with Marx, and Nietzche.

It is unfortunate that they are respectively associated with Communism and Fascism, and therefore carry a lot of emotional baggage. People who consider themselves democrats (little 'd', not the American political party) usually are appalled by the implication that they may be associated with such ideas. I suppose that avowed Communists and Fascists are not all that shocked, and perhaps even look to these people as prophets.

All that aside, the question that I wish to address is the difference in the idea of equality. I cannot yet say what pre-modern thought on this subject is for sure. I would posit that perhaps part of the problem is that no one ever asked the question if people were equal. Plato and Aristotle certainly viewed all people as inherently unequal, and life inherently un-fair. In fact, The Republic basically operates on that fundamental assumption. Later western thinkers seem to believe that while people are inherently un-equal that there is some way that we may become equal, for example entering into the City of God. However, there is a fundamental assumption that those situations are usually outside the natural realm.

Hobbes for the first time propose the equality of man in Leviathan, which seems stark in modern terms, but gave birth to much of modern though. However, it really grew to fruition with John Locke. Indeed, the American Constitution codified the ideas of Locke, and others, such as Montesqieu. You could say that the American Revolution was the first Modern Revolution.

Coincidentally, shortly thereafter, and at least nominally inspired by the American Revolution, came the first post-Modern Revolution, in France. The fundamental difference between the two is their attitudes on equality, value, and ultimately truth.

I will address only equality right now. Modern thought says that all men (and this is meant in the early Modern English sense of Man as opposed to Beast) are equal as men. There is something intrinsic within all of humanity that gives it its special-ness. And, since everyone has that something, they are equal. This is eloquently stated in the American Declaration of independence, which while it is vociferous in its complaints against the King, is very parsimonious in its enumerations of liberties. While every person is equal in worth, there is implicit in the ideas of modernity that not every person is of equal value, at least not to society.

Although some would disagree, I think that it is apparent that this is true. I do not limit it to the crass temporal worth of wealth, but instead I mean value to those around you. A doctor is obviously more valuable than a short-order cook is, because of the scarcity of doctors and the importance to our survival of their work. There is an abundance of short order cooks. In capitalism, we see this reflected in the monetary compensation they receive. (This is in no way meant to denigrate short order cooks. They are very important in society as well. I love my hamburgers, especially without spit.)

I suppose a better way to express this is that some people provide more use to those around them, than others do. While Modernists would say that being more or less useful does not necessarily degrade the worth of a person, insofar as they are not limited by personal ability, they determine their own value.

Post-Modernists would disagree. The banner of the Jacobins spoke of Liberte, Fraternite, and Egalite. (Liberty, Brotherhood (again in the non-gender specific Early Modern English sense), and Equality). Other than liberty, you never heard that during the American Revolution, and that had to do with more than just slavery extant in America at the time. The French Revolution had early communist support, although not Marxist, as he was not even born yet. In France, they believed that indeed everyone was truly equal. Being treated equally like crap by the aristocrats no doubt helped this along. It is difficult to draw examples from the French Revolution on this topic, however, because the economy never recovered until the Revolution was swallowed by nationalism (itself a pre-modern idea) and Napoleon, only a short while later.

However, we have practical examples of more articulated post-modern thought in Marxism, and Fascism. In Marxism, or Communism, all people are totally equal. In Marxism, all work is of the same value, whether a shoemaker or a doctor. Labor determines worth. In Fascism, people are also all equal as cogs of the state. All jobs that people take are, or should serve the state, and are therefore equal.

Now, the waters get a little murky when we take practical examples. Most, if not all, the examples of Fascism and Marxism, when applied injected a lot of practical politics. Nazism was vehemently pre-modern anti-Semitic, which ultimately proved counter-productive, not because it was necessary to rise to power (and maybe because of where the ideology took root). Communism was, at least in Europe, anti-Semitic as well as anti-Western, and anti-Colonial, not because it was an intrinsic part of the ideology, but because it was politically expedient for the survival of the state.

The waters become even murkier when I begin to suggest that people who are practicing members of the democratic community, of all political stripes, have ideas related to these. It is not because they are ashamed of their ideas, but because of the taint of the actions of previous proponents unrelated to thought. Suffice it to say, there are those out there, and they are numerous, who believe that all people are absolutely equal, as opposed to "created equal." The conflict is mutually exclusive, and is one of the major rifts in political society today.

I will talk about this later. Until then, keep your head down.