This is how the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines an egalitarian system, essentially considering equality as the core priority for the successful functioning of a just society. While on first observations this principle doesn't seem vastly different to some of the core ideals advocated within Marxist and socialist doctrines (i.e. in relation to equality in distribution of wealth, land and opportunities, as well as the view meritocracy and meaningful work being the main reason for greater status being awarded to someone), this principle is often far from left wing in practise. This begs the questions: can an individual possessing great wealth (yet not showing any inclination to distribute it amongst others) still be considered as an egalitarian, and why do capitalists in particular like the egalitarian school of thought?
Linking back to the idea that meritocracy and hard work as opposed to class, inheritance and exploitation of others should give others the right to greater wealth, it is clear that this is a principle favoured by many hardworking and wealthy capitalists (although many are not particularly highly-skilled or hardworking), and have proven instrumental in the development of the crude and inaccurate (as well as particularly being adopted by the right-wing) view that people who are of low-income will remain so because they are lazy. The current capitalist economic systems very much assume that employees within a business will begin as proletarians of limited power within the workplace and "work their way up" to bourgeois and managerial level through hard work and promotion. This viewpoint clearly disparages the hard work, stress, and poor health and standard of living amongst the working classes, and disguises the fact that it is down to unfair wealth distribution, devaluation of certain economic sectors and employment types, and the overruling vested interests of the wealthy that they often remain of a low income. It is clearly not the fault of the workers involved that they had had to seek employment from the owners of the means of production to gain income, and "working their way up" may not be possible depending on the ways in which businesses operate. This distaste for certain groups might, arguably, potentially hinder complete egalitarianism from being achieved in this capitalist society .
Equally, many left-leaning bourgeois individuals and those that engage in managerial roles in society would sympathise with socialist ideals may also appear to support equality in pay and treatment of workers, or would contribute to supporting others of low income yet still live a privileged and upper-middle class lifestyle. This is how "champagne socialists" have come about to exist and have proven to challenge the incorrect and clearly misguided view that all poor people are egalitarian and socialist [it also being clear to note that a lot of working class people become drawn to right-wing ideas of improved economic growth through capitalism, anti-immigrant ideals and advocacy of the middle classes (hence the seats for Reform UK in British parliament being primarily deprived working class areas)] and all wealthy people are right wing and oppose egalitarianism.
What are often presumed as socialist ideas which appear to promote egalitarian principle (such as the creation of worker owned cooperatives and Basic Income grants standardise the treatment of workers and the conditions they live and work in, as well as increasing the relative influence and
involvement in decision making in the workplace) are often used and exploited by capitalists for their own gain and made to operate in such a way so that they fulfil what would be least damaging to the capitalists' own vested interests and would mean that limited income could be detracted from these. This could mean by lowering basic income and capital, or using attempts to curb the influence of workers in the cooperatives.
Overall, while superficially there appears to be clear similarities between liberalism, libertarianism and egalitarianism meaning they likely effectively work in conjunction with each other and effectively support other stereotypically socialist ideals, it would be incorrect and misinformed to associate egalitarianism purely with the left. Like with most political schools of thought, ideology can evolve and be heavily influenced by specific individuals and governments functioning as key decision makers. This consideration of egalitarianism as largely favoured by both sides of the political spectrum and individuals in all aspects of the hierarchy in the workplace would thus prove to explain why the lines between capitalist and socialist philosophy from a social perspective might appear blurred, and that a distinction must be made between equity, equality and freedom of expression within society.
References:
Meadowcroft, J (2023) THE SOCIALISM OF THE RICH: EGALITARIANISM,
WEALTH, AND PRIVILEGE IN ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052523000262
Putterman, L et. al (1998) Does Egalitarianism Have a Future? Published in Journal of Economic Literature , Jun., 1998, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 861
902. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2565124
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2025). Egalitarianism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
Wright, E.O (2015) Eroding Capitalism: A Comment on StuartWhite’s ‘Basic
Capital in the EgalitarianToolkit’ published in Journal of Applied Philosophy. Doi: 10.1111/japp.12128
No comments:
Post a Comment