Disadvantaged by the system established to organise the means of survival, folks have found themselves segregated according to their differences. And based on those differences, struggles were created to prompt the system's social structure. On top of the hierarchy are macho white men privileged with wealth and resources, at the bottom are women among ethnic and minority groups.

The system is maintained by socialisation of inequalities based on difference; women confined to the whiteness of the house; ethnic minorities did not fit in because of their race and brainwashed as inferior.

When the means of survival became scarce through drought, conflicts between tribes saw refugees seeking for better land. This food supply is now a security issue under Climate Change, conflicts and war.

Climate Change and war are by products of struggles for survival, the same as those disadvantaged seeking refuge in what seems to be better land. And hope among the disadvantaged was envisioned upon the nation that started the industrial revolution. Only that, the nation has no room for those seeking refuge.

Equality in the view of Marxist is equal access to opportunities including resources and promotion. Inequality is when there are barriers to access. And these barriers are created by discrimination on the basis of difference. Their struggles maintained the social structure favouring white macho men.

Marxism is an analysis of social relations of the material means of survival. I have figured that Marxism may not be successful in fighting for equality unless the social relations served a human objective purpose. Equality therefore is social justice, rights to politics, social, moral, civil, economic, legal and democratic rights irrespective of difference. That is, humans irrespective of difference are equal.

You are human first before ethnicity, gender, age, sex orientation, disability and so on.

While oppressors are enjoying a lifestyle at the top of the hierarchy, the disadvantaged struggled to bridge the gap. Oppressors are somewhat addicted to the lifestyle while subordinates struggled to free themselves from oppression. And they introduced methods outside the box including personalisation of systemic issues to free themselves.

A documentary on equality and fairness followed two students who were asked exactly the same questions and were paid a dollar for each correct answer. One answered more correct questions and in turn received more money than the other.

Some have suggested equality is equally sharing the money. Others argued it is fair for the smart student to receive more money. So if the market rewards one for his/her skills and talents, it would follow that businesses are operated by smart people while consumers sell their labour and purchase production. Simply, the market reinforces inequality based on difference.

However, equity descends the spiral deeper. Supposing the one who answered less correct questions is from a poor family; his/her education would have been sacrificed. The reason why the family is poor because they are migrants. And non-European families are targets of racism therefore disadvantaged.

That's not all. The questions were designed in such a way that it was easier for one student and not for the other. You see, Education is institutionalised by colonial standards. A question of material rewards is obviously incorrect if answered social quality over material gain. Education therefore reinforces inequality based on difference.

BTW, not all business owners have PhDs, some inherited wealth and property from their families.

Ok, the reality of our world seems that generous families share their resources especially among Pasefika and Maori. European families are more individualistic. It is expected of those who don't share to save more than those who do.

At the same time, those who are richer are esteemed with status and skills of becoming rich, by whom I have no idea. But if these people are narcissists and don't care for sharing, I wouldn't give them any respects especially when landlords have wealth accumulation while the poor are sleeping on the street.

This is the difference between statuses; material or commercial status is characterised by narcissistic, uncaring, greed and individualism; social status is characterised by human qualities of sharing, caring, and friendly. Commercial status has money, social status has mana. Commercial status without mana is evil.

Capitalistic behaviour somehow coincides with religious character of loving and sharing. Does it suggest that religion complements capitalism in maintaining order of the social structure?

It's a fortuitous coincident because if society was made up of narcissistic individuals for him/herself, one could imagine the carnage. But the availability of those who share prompts the superstructure of those who don't by brainwashing and subordination.

However, this is where it gets interesting. Supposing if everyone in society is equal; like same level of knowledge, wealth, understanding, behaviour; I think everyone would be sick and tired of seeing the same things over and over like the cycle of decline. This is exactly uniform and absolute reality like tradition wants us to be.

Fortunately for us, Diversity and Equity are social gifts for the time. They guide us away from the path of destruction and linear uniformity in absolutism.

All we need to do now is to reform the market on social equality of access away from commercial status associated with narcissistic and greedy and macho institutionalised behaviour. Who knows, we might even elect a non-European Prime Minister hopefully in a not-too-distant future.

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
Post your comments here


Dont drop your guard, covid-19 is hanging around