What do you think produces inequality in society

[broken robot]

That kind of brings us back to the original question which is, is modern industrial production the problem? Or something else such as the system driving it, capitalism? There are some who would argue that modern industry presupposes a kind of instrumental rationality that views everything as an object, including people, and is thus dehumanizing. Others might attribute it to the larger capitalist system.

I think industry is fine as long as it's kept within acceptable social limits and with adequate safeguards. There was a period in American capitalism when the car factory was seen as the basis for strong middle class livelihoods. But there are also capitalist forces that undermine those same safeguards in other parts of the world, which is why you get factories collapsing on people in places like Bangladesh.

Also when we talk about the deficiencies of modern industrial production we're really thinking of a specific time and place, the 20th century west. There are parts of Africa, Latin America and South Asia where the state is pretty much weak or absent and people are being forced by protection rackets, warlords, etc. to collect natural resources at gunpoint, often by hand or with the bare minimum of tools. Who or what do you blame that on?

[eric]

Why is equality something desirable in the first place?

[The Dharma Bum]

[broken robot]

Equality must be put in its proper social and historical context, meaning there is no spectrum of absolute equality and inequality. There's only what is relevant to the time and place. Example: right now in America especially since the 1970s there's a growing gulf between rich and poor. Some see this as legitimate because of what they argue are poor lazy people on welfare, others see it as illegitimate based on what they perceive to be the exploitative practices of big business and financial speculation run rampant. People might then propose the institutionalization of different versions of equality, such as the right to own property (which may produce outcomes in real life that are substantively unequal), or the right to livelihood that's based on a deeper conception of equality. Even still everyone's ultimately arguing within some version of equality, unless you're outside the pale of the liberal thought and take say a communitarian line on the value of tradition as a form of legitimate hierarchy.

There's also the political philosophical discussion about the concepts of equality, liberty and their relation to the French revolution, revolutions of 1848, etc. Arguments based on these philosophical positions still operate against the background of larger political events occurring in society at the time. In fact, Quentin Skinner and others have promoted a form of political inquiry based on locating authors, such as Hobbes, Locke, in their political and argumentative context as opposed to seeing them as part of some timeless canon.

So really equality as both a political demand and a larger concept is relative.

[spacemonkey]

True equality only exists in the grave.

[Medius]

[broken robot]

We're using different definitions of equality here. One is common sense like I'm better at boggle than you. And the other is the more relevant question of social inequality.

Inequality in terms of say, ability to play basketball, is not the same as inequality in terms of race, class, etc. The US south wasn't legally, politically, and economically segregated along the lines of who can or can't play sports for example. The problem is when specific types of inequality, such as race, class, gender, etc. become a socially justified mechanism of domination. And just as inequality in that sense is a product of society, it can be transformed.

It doesn't mean there won't be individual variation, for example someone from the working class might become rich, but we're talking about distinctions among entire categories of people that legitimate certain forms of domination and which make the question "is this unequal?" historically and socially relevant. It all depends on what's being presented as the primary mode of differentiating among people and distributing economic, political, etc. power according to that hierarchy.

So again, to reiterate what I've said a billion times before, the question of equality is relative. You'd need to discuss specific historical cases such as US segregation for it to be a meaningful question.

There's also the curious anachronism of seeing the history of political struggle as a march of progress. We may not even see the need to have a discussion about segregation for example because the goalposts for equality have moved. Now we take things for granted. But at the time segregation was part of an intense debate, in the south at least (yeah, i know). Who knows what arguments people used to justify segregation? Now we just get a bland holiday celebrating MLK, Jr. completely ignoring the underlying relevance of these debates to continuing attempts to define inequality in areas such as right to work, etc.

[The Dharma Bum]

Right, we are speaking about political equality here. No equality of artistic talent, or whatever those guys are trying to spin it into.

[The Dharma Bum]

If every human had the same amount of political power and same political rights it would solve most of our social problems, which are derived almost entirely from disparity of political power between various groups and individuals.

Why would a rational person be against this?

Social conditioning, that's why. Turn off your TVs. Forget all that conservative versus librul nonsense and lets create a new political system based on advanced, ethical science and philosophy instead of superstitions from the bronze age.

Our continued existence as a species depends on us deconditioning ourselves from acceptance of a dysfunctional and corrupt political order that is literally destroying our habitat..

[exploited]

Political equality is somewhat nebulous as a concept, IMO. Politics is a social exercise. Knowing that, what power can an autistic person ever expect to have? What about a genius who simply does not like associating with other people, but still wouldn't mind having a say over things that impact him? What about people who just don't care, who think it is a waste of time? How can they ever be equal to someone who has and will defend a certain point of view?

In my mind, political equality is a pipe-dream. It doesn't and will never exist. Individuals cannot exercise political power on their own, they require an organization of like-minded people to ever have an impact. This makes political power dependent upon having a large social network, and the ability to form those is as variable as height, race, sexuality, whatever.