Is an equal society impossible?

Looking at the world around us and our own hierarchy, it seems that an equal society is impossible. But why is that so? It seems that the first reason is our deceptive and rationality-ignoring animal part, which sets us certain, albeit vague goals and conditions, leaving us only partial comprehension freedom and the freedom to choose the approach from available options. The second main and (currently) inevitable reason seems to be our individual difference and diversity, which is rather positive i.e., justified in its existence, and its value is understandable, than negative i.e., something that needs changing or rooting out. Perhaps our natural empathy, concerning both our close and distant species mates, still misleads us? Maybe what we are looking for is not “equality” and “equal society,” but “solidarity” and “self-realization-promoting society”? If the world we are part of is inevitably hierarchical, then inequality is inevitable. Therefore, creating equality cannot be successful. Therefore, it seems that pursuing equality is a waste of time. On the other hand, solidarity and self-realization are experienced and achievable from human nature. And since striving for them is necessary for us and is expressed in empathy and the desire to ensure equality, we should instead direct our efforts towards redefining new values and creating conditions conducive to solidarity and self-realization.

Is the power struggle inevitable?

If equality is impossible and the world we are part of is inherently hierarchical, then the power struggle is unintentionally inevitable. This is because if real equality does not exist, then we are mainly defined by our differences, and considering the world’s hierarchy, through our differences and their different combinations, we fall into different hierarchical and division of labor positions. But even our peculiarities are somehow limited. Some of our differences stem from our physiology, which is due to our species specificity. These differences are like a row of vessels, where each vessel represents some quality, filled with different amounts. No vessel can be empty or contain more than its limit allows. Because if the vessel was empty or contained more than it can hold, it would no longer be human. The other part of our differences is defined through our environment and conditions, which are exhausted on our species peculiarities. These external differences color us culturally and add depth to our individuality. These environmental and condition-derived differences can either complement the illustratively present vessels in us or empty them, affecting our natural and conditional nature parameters and sensitive existence. Being humans, we are inevitably social animals, hence we are forced to synchronize our peculiarities in order for collective progress to function effectively. But since we are mortal, naturally different, and constantly located in a changing world while also being constantly changing with even more dynamically changing needs and desires – it can be concluded that there cannot be a statically ideal or suitable candidate for a position as both goals, conditions, and the environment change, changing the requirements the position holder must face. The power struggle seems to be inevitable also because if we are one part of a larger hierarchical world, then how can we step out of it or separate ourselves from it while staying within its boundaries so that we no longer have to either dominate or be dominated by something else? It seems

like an overly confident and impossible venture that may change our position, but not remove us from the pyramid or chain entirely. But to some extent going along with the idea of removing ourselves from the hierarchy, a question arises. If we found a way to remove ourselves from the hierarchy and cancel the need for a power struggle, would we still be human after that or would we already be something else?

Is the illusion of democracy bad?

From the previous discussion, it may seem that we are pursuing some utopian democracy where everything is beautiful, equal, and good. Far from it. The main goal is to develop this train of thought. Discuss the emergence of the initial thought and think about whether it is inevitable? Even independently of the truth of this inevitability, think about why we need to ask this question, how to approach it practically and what challenges to undertake? However, inevitable does not mean unfixable. We always have somewhere to move and problems to solve, even if solving problems brings new problems as it only makes life more colorful and interesting. However, it seems that we live in the illusion of democracy and its illusoriness is inevitable because the idea of democracy itself conflicts with the hierarchy of the world. It is inevitable because if we are already part of a hierarchical world and creating a hierarchical society is also in our nature, hence we always tend to it to some extent. Then how can we be so full of ourselves and naive to seriously believe that we can go against the whole nature that is within and around us? How can we think that with all the known connectivity of nature, we become democratic and tend to be one equal unit in the entire ecosystem? This idea seems ridiculous to me. The inevitability of living in the illusion of democracy is not bad at all. Firstly because inevitable does not mean bad. Secondly because what is inevitable is also natural and what is natural cannot be bad. It may be subjectively negatively uncomfortable or unpleasant, but only subjectively and rather from the perspective of the side suffering under the illusion of democracy. Those who profit from the functioning of the illusion of democracy would argue that it is rather good and regardless of whether it is natural or not. It seems to me that in the end we have no choice but to go with the flow and go along with our nature. Smiling towards the crash! The only thing we can really do is become aware of what is going on and forecast with some accuracy what lies ahead. Based on these observations and speculations, we can make some small improvements in our individual lives, which in turn would affect our close circles and consequently society. Yes, nothing guarantees us a better future or a certain outcome, and always solving one problem, we create a new one. But by solving individual problems and creating new ones, we still move towards some better idea, slightly affecting our own and the lives of the people around us. Despite the fact that the current democracy has become an actively decaying illusion, we have evolved and significantly improved the quality of life of the average person. Knowing that a new totalitarian order awaits, we can strive to make it last not long and not degrade our civilization too much. Each of us can strive to the best of our ability and capability to make our next democracy a little better than the previous one or maybe a new governing system would emerge that would be a little better than the previous ones we have already tried. 

Author: Aleks Sakson
Comments and criticism: Liisi Keedus
English version editor: Aleks Sakson
Russian version editor: Aleksandr Dvoretsky