The Question of Equality
Equality is the fundamental demand of the rebellion of the poor: it should be the
ideological force behind the new society. How this egalitarian demand is understood is
crucial to the distinction between the Democratic Revolution and the Marxist-Jacobin
Revolution.
The Marxist answer to the egalitarian demand is the dictatorship of the proletariat,
which Maurice Duverger shrewdly describes as an accurate continuation of the Jacobin
theory of terror:
". . .Man is born but capitalism corrupts him: In order to destroy the system of
oppression, exploitation and alienation development by capitalism, violence must be used.
Violence against the state, in the first palace, so long as it is in the hands of the
exploiting classes: This means revolution. Next, when the working class has taken power,
the force of the state is directed against the exploiters and used to destroy every trace
of exploitation: this stage is the dictatorship of the proletariat."
In a society such as ours, in which the rich are too few and the poor too many, the
Marxist-Jacobinist approach has a ringing appeal. With the term proletariat, one simply
substitutes the poor. By "expropriating the expropriators," or eradicating the rich,
equality is achieved with one bold stroke.
The trouble with this formulation, however, is that the dictator-proletariat is itself
dictated upon by an all-powerful Party, while even among the poor there is a hierarchy
of classes, beginning with the "advanced" proletariat, followed by the peasantry, the
intellectuals and the petite bourgeoise. Moreover, there is a contemptible class, the
lumpenproletariat, a term reserved for "the scum of the earth."
Stated, therefore, in Marxist-Jacobinist terms, the rebellion of the poor is
self-contradictory: it is unable to approximate the egalitarian idea.
The reason for this lies in the heart of Marxism itself equality is exclusively regarded
as a relation between social classes, hence, the solution to bourgeoise domination is
proletarian dictatorship. In sum, while the domination is proletarian dictatorship. In
sum, while the domination of one class is oppressive, the domination of another is not.
But the egalitarian principle states that all men are equal, however their class, color,
or creed; it is thus a condition of each and every individual in society. A man is not
just a worker, a farmer, a teacher, or a capitalist: he deserves to be treated justly and
equally as the rest not because of these social functions but because and simply because
he is an individual human being. But the Marxist-Jacobinist equality depends on class, on
status, which is contrary to the human concept of equality. It is for the reason that man
in a totalitarian state is defined arbitrarily and persecuted arbitrarily by assigning
him to a social class.
How could this logical practical contradiction gain so much power and appeal? Partly
because of coercion and pertly because of the fascistic tendencies of capitalism in
underdeveloped societies. Communism was the only honest alternative in Tsarist Russia
and feudal-warlord-colonial China. The democratic revolutionaries in these countries were
neither sufficient nor strong enough; there was no sense of democratic revolution.
Democratic institutions, no matter how weak or corrupted by the social system, are a
pre-condition for a democratic revolution, or what is called, "revolution from the
center." Its central problem, like that of the rebellion of the poor, is equality.
Equality, moreover, that is necessary initiated in the political realm.
Obviously, then, the fundamental task of drastic political reform it to democratize the
entire political system. The high cost of election, for example, works against the
egalitarian principle, for the rich man or the instrument of the oligarchic rich, have an
edge against the poor. The literacy test discriminates against the illiterate, who, in
the present-day state of mass communications, need not necessarily be less qualified than
the literate. The minimum voting age is 21 discriminates against the 18-years olds, who
are considered old enough to fight and die for their country. The oligarchic clutch on
the political authority makes democratic rights the exclusive benefits of a controlling
class.
The Marxist-Jacobinist claims that political reconstruction is impossible without social
revolution. On the contrary, political reconstruction can change society, as we are now
changing society through a reorientation of our political authority.
Political structure forms is by no means minor: it is, in the context of our experience,
quite revolutionary. The gap between the humble citizen and the center of national power
is considerably narrowed down. But what is of paramount importance is the advent of
participatory democracy. The masses will no longer wait until controversies and issues of
the day are crystallized for them by the debates of vested groups in the media; they
crystallized the issues themselves, their opinions and sentiments are directly felt by
the political authority.
The old political system divided our people between the influential, principally on the
basis of social and economic status. The new political system unites them into a
citizenry with equal individual rights.
Politics in the old society were essential a politics of conflict, the composition
among individuals and groups for social domination. It was not a surprise therefore that
the poor, the wretched, and the frustrated, got what they could out of the politics of
conflict, since they never looked upon them as a force for authentic integration. If
behaved indifferently towards government, only "coming alive" during elections, or
whenever they sought favors rather than their due from it, it was because they believed
that for the most part government was entirely at the service of the oligarchic and
influential few. Their feeder roads, their schools, their bridges, were to remain
unbuilt for one reason or another, while the private roads, schools, and mansions of the
rich were easily constructed. There was no controversy about responding to the needs of
the influential, there was always controversy about satisfying the needs of the many. All
these came to be simple because the influential could disguise private greed with public
concern.
This state affair prevailed principally because of the dishonesty, intellectual and
otherwise, in the public forums. The national interest, the common good, were daily
betrayed in the same of "principles." But for the masses, the test of principles was the
condition of their lives; all the rhetoric did not give them the sense of equality that
they have now.
This is something that cannot be taken away from them in the name of the civil liberties
of the old establishment. Having known political equality, all the freedoms, let alone
the freedom of expression, which were distorted in the old society, our people henceforth
demand that all freedoms be considered under one supreme criterion: how will they serve
the cause of the rebellion of the poor.
Evidently, the egalitarian principle requires a reconstruction of our political values.
|