The perversion of egalitarianism

Three items:

1. George Galloway’s support for Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad.

2. Banks’ proposals to ban piggy banks because they are offensive to Muslims.

3. A court orders a law firm to re-employ a manager it was employing for two and a half days on a salary of £36,000 a year; the manager was supported in the case by the Equal Opportunities Commission.

These instances – and there are many like them – are linked. They are symptoms of the perversion of egalitarianism.

Those of us who consider ourselves egalitarians do so because we find it offensive that people can suffer disadvantage through no fault of their own. But the project of correcting these disadvantages has been perverted into support for dictators, the upholding of managers’ privileges, and making gestures to religious bigots.

Why has this happened? It’s tempting to dismiss these cases as examples of individual idiocy. But there are deeper forces perverting egalitarianism.

1. Egalitarians have faith in the power of the state to transform peoples’ lives. This faith can slip into a respect for power and then into an idolatry of it. This little story from Frank Johnson illustrates the “socialist” mindset that gives us Galloway’s power-worshipping:

Officially, when a taxi arrives, MPs are allowed to assert precedence over non-MPs. The only one I have ever seen do it was [Tam] Dalyell. He said something to me like, "MPs do come before."

Even when egalitarians have admirable aims, their power-worshipping can pervert these. Here’s Stuart Hodkinson on the Make Poverty History campaign:

The failure of MPH to achieve its political demands cannot be laid at the door of Oxfam, Geldof and company alone. By being too dependent on corridor-lobbying, celebrities and the media, by failing to give voice and ownership of the campaign to Southern social movements, by watering down the radical demands agreed upon by hundreds of grassroots movements, from both the South and North, at the World Social Forum, and by politically legitimising the G8 summit, the campaign was doomed from the start.

2. Even the democratic instincts of the Left needn’t be egalitarian. The groups that get organized and hence get power aren’t necessarily the most deprived. Indeed, the worst disadvantage often consists precisely in not having a voice or organization.

Equality is therefore most easily achieved by those whose need is least. Women in management positions can successfully redress perceived inequalities. The mentally ill, the starving Africans, the slaves shipped here illegally cannot.

3. We all are vulnerable to a halo effect, whereby we see people who are bad in one dimension as bad in all. The bad guys in films are not only uglier than the good guys, but worse shots too. This means the left sees all aspects of western civilization as repressive, whereas only some are. Hence the ridiculous idea that piggy banks are offensive.

These problems – some of you might add others – aren’t accidental features of the left. They’re too common for that.

But they raise a troubling question. Can a true egalitarian project ever succeed, or must it always be perverted by power-worshippers, irrationalists and special interests? A purely empirical answer would be unequivocal.

Comments

[Devil's Kitchen]

The answer is "no, it can't".

Egalitarianism ignores fundamental biological human perogatives, i.e. to do the very best for oneself and to propagate one's genes and to do so with the maximum survival advantage.

We aspire to conquer such base instincts, but the lie is given to that idea in that only those who are in a comfortable enough position have the time to consider these matters.

DK

[AJE]

"Can a true egalitarian project ever succeed, or must it always be perverted by power-worshippers, irrationalists and special interests?"

Isn't it true, by definition, that the under-represented and neglected people in society cannot secure the political representation needed to steer egalitarian policy to where it's needed?

[Unity]

It depends on how you define a 'true egalitarian project'.

There is a philosophical paradox at the heart of this question - any post-enlightment egalitarian project is necessarily an expression of the aspirations of Rousseau, yet to create Rousseau's utopia one must take on the mantle of Hobbes' Leviathan.

DK is right that one cannot eradicate the basic biological imperatives of survival but at an individual level on can mediate and moderate them - one can always learn to say enough rather than always demanding more.

That, I think, is the both the essence of the paradox and its solution - Utopia is not something you can create but it is something you can find, its a personal journey you can share but one where you cannot create the road to it for others - they have to find their own way there.

I think it possible that the only true egalitarian project is a project which entails changing yourself and not trying to change the world.

[Backword Dave]

Ah, you can take the Tam out of Eton (where he was a Tory), but you can't take the Eton out of Tam.

[dearieme]

i) Egalitarianism attracts the usual crowd of self-seeking careerists.
2) But it also has a particular appeal to people with rather nasty character defects, whose motivation is less concerned with love for the unlucky, but rather hatred for the fortunate.
So "Can a true egalitarian project ever succeed"? Only if its aims are modest, incomplete and consistent with brute facts. If you think that the Butler Education Act satisfied these requirements, then you weep for its demise.