Concepts such as equality before the law (legal equality), equality of opportunity, equality of results or outcomes, etc., are related to either liberal or welfare or social democratic perspectives. They suggest that equality can be or should be sought while private ownership of property remains intact. In fact, the very search for equality is based on the realization that private ownership of means of production and private property would not in itself be an adequate mechanism to ensure equality or parity. Further, slogan of equality has been raised as per class interests. As we have mentioned earlier quoting Emile Burns, equality as a slogan was strongly demanded by the rising capitalist class against the entrenched power of the landed aristocracy and nobility during the French Revolution. However, the slogan for equality was for legal equality and not economic equality. Subsequently, demand for political and economic equality was largely a reflection of demands by the working class and women for extension of political and economic rights to them. However, economic rights within the liberal, welfare and social democratic perspectives meant either equality in terms of wages or right to work and employment or redistribution without disturbing private property or private ownership of means of production.
Legal equality or equality by securing civil and political rights has both positive and negative aspects. Marxian perspective, as Heywood opines, accepts the contribution of market and capitalism in bringing ‘equality in that marketplace judges people not according to social rank or any other individual peculiarities, but solely in terms of their market value.’62 At least, capitalism combined with the democratic principles has helped remove social inequalities in the marketplace based on birth, inheritance, etc., which were prevalent in feudal times. Lenin acknowledges that ‘democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalist class … but democracy means only formal equality.’ However, two problems remain unanswered as Heywood poses. Firstly, despite democratic principle and legal equality, ‘culturally institutionalised’ discriminations in terms of race, castes and social distinctions remain prevalent. Secondly, capitalism generates class differences that lead to either a disadvantaged position for workers or ‘starkly different market values’ for different individuals based on their class. In a situation of different market values based on classes, equality is not genuine. It is inequality under the garb of legal and market equality. The Marxian perspective treats this as ‘bourgeois equality’ and is critical of bourgeois equality. Equality based on equality of civil and political rights is meaningless while economic inequality continues. Capitalist system based on class differences and private ownership of means of production is based on exploitation of workers and economic inequality. Unless, social ownership of means of production is achieved, equality will remain bourgeois equality and meaningless.
Karl Marx in his On the Jewish Question dealt with the issues related to economic and social inequalities suffered by racial minorities such as Jews. As Heywood maintains, Marx was critical of securing ‘Jewish “political emancipation” through the acquisition of equal civil rights and liberties.’63 Mere provision of civil and political rights and liberties are not adequate to counter culturally rooted discriminations or attitudinal aspects of it. In India also, despite civil rights and legal equality, caste-and gender-based cultural attitudes and discriminations are not rare.
In the Marxian framework, inequalities emerge primarily from economic system and class difference. Demands for legal, political, civil and social rights and liberties are demands for concession in realm of the superstructure. However, unless the class difference in the infrastructure/base is resolved, equality based on concessions of superstructure will not be meaningful. Economic equality is treated as the most crucial equality, which is the basis of other forms of equality. Equality based on the resolution of class differences will automatically lead to other forms of equality that emerge from concessions of the superstructure in liberal–capitalist system. Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto, Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscript of 1844, Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Lenin in The State and Revolution have adequately explained that origin of inequality is to be identified with origin of private property. Private property, private ownership of means of production and classes with antagonist relationship characterize liberal–capitalist system. In such a system, equality is neither possible nor meaningful.
The Marxian perspective seeks to bring equality based on a classless society and social ownership of means of production. The principle of equality or justice in a classless society is proposed to be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.64 Elucidating further, Lenin says, according to his ability means everyone will work without calculating ‘with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has worked half an hour more than somebody else.’ According to needs means ‘each will take freely’ as per needs without quantity being regulated. For Lenin, equality seemed an empty phrase if it did not imply abolition of classes. In short, we can say that the Marxian view on equality is primarily related to economic equality, which is to be achieved by abolition of classes. It is important to note that liberal, welfare and social democratic conceptions of equality are based on the assumption that class differences are reconcilable and equality can be negotiated within the existing political process. This can be achieved through legal equality, equality of opportunity and redistribution of chances and resources. The Marxian perspective refutes this assumption and maintains that the private property, the state and classes are manifestations of irreconcilability of differences and antagonism. Lenin says, ‘the great significance of the proletariat’s struggle for equality and of equality as slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning abolition of classes.’65
Abolition of classes is possible through a proletarian revolution, which will lead to establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat. During the phase of dictatorship of the proletariat, complete equality is not possible, as it would still be society with class differences remaining. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a class rule, this time, rule of the majority. Here the principle of equality would be ‘from each according to ability, to each according to work’. This revision in the principle of equality that should prevail in a communist society is necessitated due to the incomplete nature of transition and existence of the state, which has still to ‘wither away’. Lenin was also critical of those who sought concessions of economic and political nature through agitation. He termed this as ‘economism’, which he considered as inimical to revolutionary potential.
Marx in Economic and Philosophical Manuscript has discussed about the ‘power of money’ and showed how money-based inequalities could overcome or camouflage natural and physical defects. Marx terms ‘distorting power’ of money … since money, as the existing concept of value, confounds and confuses all things …66 If we recall, Rousseau terms as natural inequalities (differentiated from conventional inequalities), which are natural and unalterable. Marx’s discussion shows that the power of money can compensate those unalterable problems. While discussing the alienating effect of money as something external to the qualities of the individual, Marx suggests that properties of money are considered as the properties and powers of the possessor. ‘The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power.’ This is complete identification with money of an individual’s own powers and capabilities. An individual has no humanity, no capability, no powers and no individuality except the power of money. Money nullifies the deterrent power of any physical or natural disability such as ugliness, brainlessness, or even dishonesty. Thus, natural inequalities are nullified by the power of money.
The Marxian perspective, as stated by Lenin, seeks equality ‘for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labour and wages…’67 Primacy is given to economic equality and other forms of equality are made a function of economic equality. Economic equality is to be realized in two stages—socialist stage where distribution of result of labour is as per work and communist stage where distribution of result of labour is as per needs. However, as reported by several thinkers such as Milovan Djilas, R. M. Medvedev, S. Stojanovic of the former communist countries, these countries could not provide equality in many respects. It is alleged that there were inequalities in terms of workers at large and the party apparatchik (Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government) in securing various privileges including special coupons. Djilas has reported that the new ruling elite belonging to the communist party had emerged.
A theoretical question arises with respect to distribution according to the criteria of work. If work is the basis of distribution of product of labour, does the state collect a portion as surplus, which is not given to the worker? If there is no surplus produced by the worker and each gets what one works for, then where does the state get resources to sustain? It would be difficult to accept that everyone gets what he or she work for and there also remains a surplus for the state to function and for those who are incapable of working at all. If the last requirements are to be admitted, then it is also possible that at the socialist stage, everyone gets as per work but also leaves a share of it for the state and those who cannot work. It is possible then, this gap itself, leads to inequalities.
Leave a Reply