Is equality possible in society? Social equality and equity. Where there are no opportunities, there is no equality i

Or vice versa; equality of man in society, relative to society. Who came up with these pearls? I don’t know, maybe an ancient philosopher, but this is unverified information. What does modern science think about this?

Modern science answers unequivocally - the principle of equality of people is not true.
All people are not born equal. This is not a slogan, this is a scientific fact.
They are not equal in mental or physical, mental or moral abilities.
This is proven, at least, by genetics, which buried the principle of equality, clearly proving that all people from birth have a different genotype. And the range of this inequality is quite large.
This is the real truth, whether you like it or not.
Now genetics has clearly proved the inequality not only of people, but also of nations and races. Different nations and races have different genotypes.
When the communists persecuted genetics, calling it fascist and racist pseudoscience, they did it not out of stupidity and not because they had nothing to do.
These actions are quite consistent and inevitable. Genetics destroyed the foundation of communism, knocking out the central block - the principle of equality.
Therefore, Christians and communists understood that genetics is incompatible with them. And they had to choose: either genetics buries Christianity and communism, just as false religions or communism and Christianity declare genetics a pseudoscience.
Naturally, they chose the latter.
In fact, only equality of opportunity is fair, and for people who are unequal from birth, it will automatically lead to inequality of results, to social and economic inequality, the presence of poor and rich, etc.
And this is normal, it corresponds to the real, not contrived nature of man.

If God is one for all people, and they are his likeness, then, therefore, all people from birth are EQUAL to each other.
This is where the principle of human equality came from. The communists have the idea of ​​equality as "equality and brotherhood".
And the communists planted this equality with brutal force, trying to eliminate inequality, to equalize the poor and the rich, to destroy the difference between town and country, between mental and physical labor, between man and woman.
Rivers of blood have been shed for this vicious principle of "equality." And they destroyed the entire multi-level social structure of society and destroyed the entire economy, the entire culture, all the wealth of life, since equality can only be in poverty. This is what the vicious idea of ​​the One God leads to.
There is no equality in polytheism. The society had a caste, and later a class organization. There are many gods and different social groups have their own divine patrons. Instead of the principle of equality, the principle "To each his own" prevails.
When Jews hear the principle “to each his own”, they start yelling: “Fascists, fascists. This slogan was written on the gates of the Buchenwald concentration camp.
So what if this slogan was written somewhere? Is the truth of a slogan determined by where it is written or not written?
If “2x2 = 4” were written on the gates of Buchenwald, then what, would this be an incorrect statement?
We see that different religions have opposite attitudes towards human equality. What is the true state of things?
This question is answered by science, which, in its area of ​​competence, always takes precedence over religious thought.
The Christian "only" God created a woman, supposedly from a man's rib. Can you believe it? No. Why?
Yes, because it is contrary to science, in particular genetics, which clearly proves that all people have a different gene pool. And in the rib of any man, the genes are exactly the same as in the man as a whole.
Where did this genetic diversity of people come from? In addition, Adam's rib contains the genes of a man, that is, Eve should have turned out to be a man.
Either this myth is a lie, or there are many Gods, and the Gods are genetically different. Then, of course, people from these Gods are different, with different gene pools.
There are even 7 primary colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Where did this diversity come from?
The question of whether there is one God or many Gods has not only religious, but also scientific significance.
Take, for example, physics. What is God, in terms of physics? It is, first of all, a kind of objective world force.
In Einstein's time, the scientific picture of the physical world was very heterogeneous. Several theories described different forces irreducible to each other.
Since Einstein was a Jew and a believing monotheist, he was the first to put forward the idea of ​​building a unified field theory, where all forces are different manifestations of one single universal force.
Einstein worked on this idea for about 30 years and achieved nothing. The world's most powerful minds of theoretical physicists are now following its path.
And what? Today, in the physical world, there are four physical Gods independent of each other:
. gravity force;
. electromagnetic forces;
. weak interactions;
. strong interactions.
And all this is only in the physics of inanimate nature. How many more Gods can give rise to the phenomenon of life? Science knows little about this.
Of course, it's not just the number of Gods.
In general, if you look deeper, the problem of monotheism or polytheism rests on the attitude to the TRUTH.
(U.R.B. Istarkhov) (c)

Can society exist without hierarchy and inequality? In Marxist theory, attempts were made to justify that

inequality and stratification did not always exist, for example, they did not exist in primitive society.

Is it really? It has been previously shown that inequality and dominance are present in animal communities. Even in the simplest human societies, despite the appearance of equality, gender and age dominance took place. The most successful hunters, skilled craftsmen, persons with rare abilities (shamans, healers), etc. also occupied a higher position than the rest. Between different communities there has always been inequality in access to useful resources (jade, obsidian, salt, clay), and those on whose territory these resources were located derived certain benefits from their position.

All this testifies to the fact that inequality, even in the most primitive form, always exists. Many prominent thinkers were skeptical about the possibility of creating a society without hierarchy and stratification. They believed that the desire to equalize everyone in everything is a prerequisite for the disappearance of any individuality. Considering this problem, Pitirim Sorokin picked up many historical examples when people tried to create a society of equals. But they all ended in failure. Christianity began with egalitarian communities, but built a mighty pyramid with a pope, cardinals and an inquisition. For the same purpose, St. Francis created the institution of monasticism, but after seven years not a trace of the former equality remained (Sorokin 1992). The large-scale communist "experiment" of the 20th century only confirmed this pattern on the basis of a large amount of factual material. Throughout the entire space of the "world socialist system" - from the USSR to Cuba and Korea - a general trend, the law of world history, clearly emerges - the initial egalitarianism of the revolutionaries is quickly replaced by the establishment of a rigid hierarchy, class partitions, the desire of the elite for luxury, total surveillance of citizens, mass terror. Every time the noble intentions of social engineers turn into a road to hell. It is important to emphasize that a bright future turned out to be the underworld for those who once again began to create it. Revolutions, as a rule, devoured their creators - if naive reformers did not have time to get their dreams of social justice out of their heads, a wave of careerists rushing to power swept them away on their way.

The gap between the masses and their representatives, who have managed to climb a step higher in the social hierarchy, occurs almost non-automatically. Bruno Bettelheim describes how quickly this happens in a concentration camp with a person who has fallen from ordinary prisoners into the camp "elite". The headman, who yesterday was ready to rummage through the garbage in search of potato peels, today sends a prisoner to his death, whom he found doing the same thing. It is difficult for him to imagine what it means to be hungry. He can no longer look at the world through the eyes of a person who is on the other side of the barbed wire. An amazing property of the human psyche is to quickly forget everything that happened to you before (Bettelgeim 1960).

The privileged groups are firmly guarding their gains.

A little less than three years have passed since the October Revolution, and the young nomenclature has already entered into such a taste of privileges that in a hungry, howling Russia, a special “control commission” had to be created to deal with the abuses of some representatives of the party. The commission did not last long. Two years later, at the XI Congress of the RCP(b) in 1922, a more moderate demand was put forward: "to put an end to the large difference in pay between different groups of communists." A year later, a circular was sent out to the UK and UKK RCP(b), which only condemned the use of state funds by some party officials to equip their offices, dachas and personal apartments. The document proclaimed that "the necessary standard of living for responsible workers should be provided with higher wages" (Voslensky 1991: 319). In this regard, the statements of some modern Russian politicians, who assure the public that massive corruption among officials can be prevented by setting high salaries for the apparatus, look naive.

Robert Michele (1876-1936), using the example of modern trade union workers' organizations, showed how an organizational hierarchy arises (Michels 1959). What makes his analysis particularly piquant is the fact that he did it on the example of the social democratic parties. According to Michels, any political or trade union structure faces various problems in its activities (conducting political campaigns and elections, publishing activities, negotiating, etc.). This activity is time-consuming and sometimes requires special training. If the organization has a large number of members, then additional efforts are needed to coordinate them. The management apparatus is gradually being formed, which is engaged in ensuring the life of the organization, collects contributions, conducts correspondence, etc. Managers receive remuneration for their work. Thus, direct democracy in socialist parties is replaced by representative democracy.

As the organization grows, the masses inevitably lose control over it. This task is entrusted to special auditors or appropriate services, which are charged with supervising the functionaries and periodically informing the majority about the results of the audits.

Over time, a gap develops between the masses and the elected leaders. First of all, this gap concerns lifestyle and income. The new way of life is more varied (mental work, travel, contact with the business world, government and union bodies, the press, etc.) and more satisfying. A higher level of income and access to the channels of redistribution of funds of their organizations allow them to lead a comfortable lifestyle, improve housing conditions, purchase a more luxurious car, etc. All this is gradually changing the worldview of trade union functionaries.

They are already striving not so much to fulfill the program guidelines of their party, but to preserve their own position. The distance between them and ordinary workers is increasing. At the same time, they are becoming closer to the trade union officials of other organizations, as well as to the administration of their own organization. Aware of their common interests, functionaries develop mechanisms to protect their position and power within the entire group. They concentrate in their hands the infrastructure of the organization, press organs and financial resources. Finally, they are better informed than the simple masses and more sophisticated in intrigue and political struggle. If opposition arises within the organization, then all these levers can be directed against the revisionists. This, according to Michels, is the "iron law of the oligarchy."

From all this, Michele concluded that the presence of trade unions in organizations is not in itself a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. Trade union leaders and functionaries pursue their own goals, often different from the interests of the masses who elected them, they are strongly tempted to eliminate democratic control procedures and the possibility of re-election, they seek to turn their influence into oligarchic power. These conclusions are consonant with the ideas of Bertrand Russell, who showed that no form of society can exist without an organizational hierarchy. The main problem of any social system, including a democratic one, is that a complex society involves the introduction of an organizational hierarchy, but the governing elite pursues completely different interests than the ruled majority (Russel 1938).

Thus, the complication of society inevitably leads to the introduction of an organizational hierarchy. The latter means the emergence of special persons who perform only managerial functions and receive priority access to resources. Since the amount of resources is almost always limited, access to them is mediated by various dominance mechanisms: in animals or in the criminal world - by the “pecking order”, in society - by the social positions of the individual. Status provides leaders with access to community and meaningful resources. Immediately or gradually, consciously or unconsciously, all or some of the rulers seek to take advantage of the current situation to improve personal well-being or obtain new privileges. In this way, stratification, the state, civilization and private property arose in human society.

Questions for control 1.

What is aggressiveness? 2.

Is equality between women and men possible? 3.

What are the reasons for the age disparity? 4.

What is the difference between inequality, stratification and hierarchy? 5.

Is equality possible in human society? You will be kind and wise - the only kind and wise person in your kingdom. And out of kindness, you will begin to distribute land to your associates, but what will the associates of the land be without serfs?

“Perhaps equality is a right, but no force on earth will make it a fact” (O. Balzac).

Is equality possible? Some see it as a huge benefit and are sure that it is real. Others argue that in the conditions of modern society, the establishment of equality is impossible.

Equality - the position of people in society, ensuring their equal attitude to the means of production, equal political and civil rights, equality.

A right is a state-protected, legalized opportunity to do something.

Types of rights:
 personal;
 political;
 socio-economic;
 cultural.
The essence of this statement by O. Balzac is that equality is a right, but a society in which all people are equal cannot exist. This statement is still relevant, because social inequality is the subject of study of modern sociologists.

This statement corresponds to the views of socialists. Socialism is an economic, socio-political system of social equality, characterized by the fact that the process of production and distribution of income is under the control of society. This statement also corresponds to the theory of the rule of law, according to which laws apply equally to everyone without exception.

From the standpoint of pragmatism, equality is a strong social regulator. I believe that a society where equality prevails and people have the same access to the means of production is not threatened by revolution and social conflicts. In an atmosphere of universal equality, there can be no contradictions, and therefore no clashes. Then it turns out that each person should try to bring the state of which he is a citizen closer to this model?

But, from the standpoint of existentialism, everyone strives to improve the level of their existence. From this follows an uneven distribution of income, the level of influence of individuals becomes different ... Everything is reflected in the position of a person in society or his social status. Depending on social statuses, social strata are formed that form social stratification, the main principle of which is social inequality.

This statement is also supported by the biological point of view. People are born already unequal: each child has certain innate abilities that distinguish him from others. In addition, history knows cases of discrimination against people in appearance - Hitler's theory of the superiority of the Aryan race, the conflict of "whites and blacks" in America, where Indians are still forbidden to leave their reservations. In modern times, there are also fascist groups that put their race above all others.

Therefore, I believe that there has never been equality. Even though in primitive society people did not differ from each other either in their financial situation or in the presence of special rights (differences appear only with the advent of agriculture and cattle breeding), people still differed in both physical training and personal qualities, and, consequently, they had different access to to resources (the one who is stronger and more dexterous will get the prey). In a slave-owning society (according to the formation theory of K. Marx), rights, incomes and power were unevenly distributed: everything depended on the origin of a person. The same thing happened in a feudal society, only the mode of production changed, and the peasants had more rights compared to the slaves (they could have their own economy and means of production, a family ...). Under capitalism, signs of equality began to appear, but access to the means of production still remained different. Under socialism, proclaimed at the beginning of the 20th century as the social system of some countries, there was no equality either. So the Decree on Land, adopted in Russia in 1917, did not lead to equality, but to the dictatorship of the worker and peasant masses and the infringement of the rights of the nobility and intelligentsia. Also notorious are the brutal repressions (the fight against sabotage, the "doctors' case", the persecution of cultural and art workers), which made certain sections of society powerless. And the stratum of the nomenclature that formed later, which enjoyed obvious privileges in access to the means of production, and the flourishing "telephone law" finally refutes the existence of equality in the USSR.

One should agree with this statement by O. Balzac that equality is a right, but a society in which all people are equal cannot exist. Equality can prevent revolutions and social conflicts in society, but the desire of people to improve their social status, uneven distribution of income and power make it unrealistic. In the modern world, children are limited in their rights, there is an inequality between a man and a woman ... Despite the fact that the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that everyone is equal before the law and the court (Article 19), media headlines are increasingly full of facts of corruption and injustice of the authorities to "ordinary people". To believe this or not is a personal matter for everyone, but maybe it was not in vain that V. I. Lenin said: “Equality under the law is not yet equality in life”? ..

Is there gender equality? Open any public for girls, and you will see that if there is, they are ready to exchange it for a dress, shoes, lipstick from an expensive brand and the opportunity to show all this not at work in Ust-Kukuyevo, but, for example, at a resort. Yes, the trend has changed. In place of downright feminist Soviet views, something very reminiscent of ordinary patriarchy has come. And while in the West girls choose a career, travel, sports, and late motherhood, many of us would be happy to get married and cook borscht, if only they didn’t have to go to work.

Physical exercise helps produce testosterone, which gives pleasure. Therefore, sex is the best end to a workout.

Where there is no opportunity, there is no equality. i

Popular psychology for women teaches us about the following:

1. If you are too smart, a man will stop perceiving you as a sexual object;
2. Will you build a successful career? Also expect trouble, no one wants to date a boss lady, real men want to be bosses themselves;
3. Do you want to live for your own pleasure and spend the money you earn on travel and beautiful things? Do not expect someone to want a serious relationship with you, since a girl is only taken to create a family, and what kind of family is there if you catch the wind in Dahab today and register for the Boston Marathon tomorrow

In general, the ideal woman for marriage is such an eternal subordinate. Not stupid, but not smarter than a man. She goes to work, but is not too passionate about her career. He earns, but only so that he does not know how much the Clarence washbasin costs, and why it is not replaced by the Clean Line.

Yes, testosterone is the dominant hormone in men's blood. But if everything is explained by high sex hormones, then after sex, when prolactin rises, guys should want to immediately acquire offspring, or, in extreme cases, a couple of cats. However, they want to put on jeans and go home if they have nothing serious to see you.

Quote of the Day

Sex is a sitcom.

Dmitry Khrapovitsky

Quote of the Day

A woman needs love, and a man needs a woman.

Wolf Vondracek

Quote of the Day

Sex is the funniest thing I could do without laughing.

Woody Allen

By the way, women who are prone to adventurism, who are not alien to the competitive spirit, and who want to independently provide themselves with all the benefits, no one checks for sex hormones. They are usually credited with "wrong upbringing" and "wrong values".

Dry economic theory reduces everything to simpler things. We do not live in the richest country. To build a successful career, you need to either study hard and choose the right profession, or sell goods and services well. Unfortunately, many activities do not fit into this paradigm. Society requires men to "be the provider." Therefore, if the earner is not very successful in the field of making money, it is easier to support him with such a doctrine. Look for, they say, a woman who is weaker than you, and against the background of her you will look great, dear comrade man.

Sexism and equality: everyone suffers 2

And here she is, the woman. Learns to hide high earnings and the same high intelligence. And next to her is a man who for some reason suspects her of trying to master his salary, sit on his neck, and immediately reward her with a family, a child and a mortgage. It is clear that if they meet somewhere after the club, they will not live long without scandals and quarrels. There can be no question of any healthy relationship if one person constantly pretends, and the other suspects him of fictitious sins.

Sexism happens not only in relation to a woman. It also includes the following settings:

• A man is simply obliged to provide for an adult capable woman who is neither on maternity leave nor in a difficult situation. It’s just that two people met, she entered him for maintenance, or began to spend her money exclusively on clothes, procedures and entertainment, and him on living together and necessary needs. The result of this point of view is a situation where a man is a kind of slave of relationships, and must pay for the presence of these relationships with all his income. In this situation, a woman is an expensive commodity, with the help of which they raise their social significance, that's all.

• A man is obliged to solve problems that an adult can solve on his own. For example, at the first call to break loose and take a woman’s car to MOT or rush to fix everything in the house that is being repaired, although it would be better to hire a specialist for this. Moreover, before the relationship, the girl could well take the car to MOT herself, and call the master too.
• A woman is obliged to cook food, even if she works, is busy with her projects, and does not know how to cook in principle. Moreover, a man can eat semi-finished products and food from delivery before the relationship, but when he starts living with a woman, he is very upset if she also prefers delivery, rather than fun leisure with cabbage soup and borscht.
• Both are simply burning with the desire to immediately have children, even if they do not have an apartment, the desire to raise offspring, and joint money to provide for the needs of the child, at least for the first years of his life without loss to himself.
• A man is obliged to remove all girls from friends, stop corresponding with them on social networks, and in general, if possible, behave like a social pariah, and in no case should communicate with women, even if work, a hobby or some unfortunate visit requires it. to the house committee. A woman should change her style of dress to “married”. Yes, more oversized gray sweatshirts, "my mom jeans" style pants, flat boots, and less make-up. Now there is no need to dye hair, do nails, eyelashes, lips, and go to the beautician either.

• If a woman gets a career advancement, she should think a hundred times. And how is her other half. Suddenly she becomes so stressed that she ceases to perceive her as a marriage partner, and runs away to a less powerful and more feminine neighbor. If a man gets such a promotion, the woman should rejoice. Even now, all the responsibilities for the house and raising children will fall on her, and she will have to move beyond the Arctic Circle. Husband's career is more important. What about you? Borsch!
• A man wanted to take care of a child on maternity leave, because he has a career dead end, he loves household chores, and he is better at taking care of the baby? No way. He will also lose his masculinity. And go to the mothers on the playground. And if a woman does not want to lose 3 years of a successful career, she is a bad mother. Because it is simply obliged to be near the baby. Even if it is “nearby” and then it will turn into a need for her to raise a child in a one-room apartment and drag her to school by bus.
• A woman discovers that her husband has a mistress? You have to endure, behave as usual, sign up for a bunch of expensive beauty treatments to get him back. A man discovers that his wife has taken a lover? He is by no means to blame, nothing needs to be done, except perhaps to expel his wife and find a new one.

Can it exist? 3

We are so arranged that we compare ourselves with others. So, not in all families "dad works, and mom is beautiful." And not in all respects a man is obliged, and a woman is only obliged to sacrifice her freedom.

Yes, at work, many have to fight discrimination for gender equality, moreover, in relation to both sexes. Just imagine a man at school, or a woman bus driver. But we are free to leave jobs that we don’t like, or where the team doesn’t like it. We do not have to associate with people whose life values ​​we do not share, and we should not tolerate resentment and discrimination in relationships.

Each person can find someone who shares his attitudes and values, and build both a career and harmonious family relationships. Therefore, gender equality may not exist in society, but in a separate family it is quite achievable, if this is what its members strive for.

This question arises only before extremely limited people, for example, Christians. They were planted firmly on false postulates. If you can pray for the crucifixion, then there is no need to talk about soundness.
EQUALITY, FREEDOM BROTHERHOOD is the slogan of Masons and Bolsheviks.
HE is false, like all their philosophy - first of internationalism, later, more "refined" philosophy of cosmopolitanism.
A person cannot be a citizen of the world. He can be the son of his people (nation). But not all nations at once.
Maybe even a "tumbleweed" or "Ivan who does not remember kinship" - these are those who lost, along with their conscience, MEMORY. And without memory, a person is an animal, an amoeba.
So is Equality - it is simply not provided by Nature.
"God did not equalize the forest, did not equalize the people" - this is what people say from time immemorial.
One was born smart, the other flawed,
One is beautiful, the other is ugly
One takes care of the Parents, the other does not give a damn about duty and duty.
There are more differences between people than there are similarities. And this is a command from ABOVE.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO EQUALIZE A KILLER AND A MORALLY, SPIRITUALLY HEALTHY PERSON? How can they be equalized? Give both the same social protection? And the adoration of society?
And by the way, the ruling clique has already planted the people on patterns and samples of ugliness and immorality, and a huge number of immoral people, corrupted by excess, receive the "love" of the public in abundance. Such as Borka Moiseev, Alla Puacheva (real name Pevzner)
It turns out that one or two generations ... and crumbs remain from the morality of a great people. Here it is ... the all-encompassing power of non-Russian media.