Equalitarism in
Modern Times
According to Wikipedia, Equalitarism[1] is
a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines
maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status: either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have
the same political, economic, social, and civil rights; or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities
among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization
of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point
of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.
Social Equality is at some point the major goal
of governments, but it is difficult to know what is the best way to achieve it.
Socialists usually refer to heavy government intervention as a way to balance
inequality, in the form of Social Plans, benefits, etc. Capitalists take the
opposite approach: they are usually in favor of a pro-company free-market
philosophy. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Too much Welfare and help
from the government stances Entrepreneurial spirit: the population expects to
have everything resolved for them. No government intervention would mean very
few benefits: some sort of Social Support is necessary to support the working
force that is shifting jobs, unemployed or needs some sort of social
assistance.
It is quite clear though that European
countries have achieved the highest levels of development through the most
important factor: Education. The first Universities in Europe were established
in the early 1000s! Very clearly, only well accommodated men were able to
afford University in the first centuries. From the 1900s and onwards, going to
University became more popular as well. Families would save up money to support
their children's education, with the expectation that they would have a better
life (and eventually support their own parents financially in their old age).
In European countries and countries of European origin (such as Argentina and
Canada), public education has been a reality for more than a century. The same
could be said about Public Health Care system.
So what is it then, that has made some
countries more successful than others? Why is it that some societies achieve
higher levels of development than others? Very simply put... it's the CULTURE. Again,
examples from the American continent come to mind. Canada, one of the most
developed countries in the World, has been mainly populated by Europeans. However,
they have not received much non-European migration, making it a multi-european
country (and not multi-cultural). Amongst Europeans abroad there are high
levels of trust, and good levels of integration. This is not the case for
Europe, where hard feelings between nations prevail after centuries of conquest,
occupation, civil wars... and Two World Wars!!! Another great example is
Argentina: whereas Europeans who migrated there between 1880s and 1970s have
integrated and achieved high levels of trust, it has not been so for the people
of indigenous origin and their children. This has led to the formation of Guettos
and poverty districts spread throughout the country. But Argentina has a great
educational and health system, plus interesting welfare benefits that have been
re-established in the last 10 years under the Kirchner Administration. How can
it be then, that 5% of the population is poor (by poor defining people who live
in slums, a type of poverty not found in Europe), and more than 20% of the
population is Socially Excluded?
In Argentina, people of European origin are
considered Argentinian. But not those of indigenous origin, who must tolerate
bad working conditions, be treated as a thieves, do not get proper jobs, are
victim of racism, discrimination, etc, etc. Meaning, the 20% of the population
that is not of European origin are not considered... Argentinian (at least not
in practice)!!! Identification might be an issue for people who belong to
different cultures, but were born and raised in that country.
By separating between different cultural
groups, the US has done the best job at multi-culturalism. Latino-americans,
Hispanic-americans, Italo-americans, Scandinavian-americans, Afro-americans,
Asians... They are not the same. By separating the groups they can be studied
independently, to find out how productive the different groups are, and what
are their issues. Some of the groups have been established many decades ago and
pass on their inheritances. Other groups are newly established and could
struggle more due to lack of proper contacts and networks (like the Asians).
But some groups like the Afros have been around for a couple of centuries and
have been oppressed, discriminated and relegated only until a couple of decades
ago. By finding representatives or figures to lift forward in society, the US
has managed to get their population identified with the American dream. When a
black person sees a Tina Turner in the music industry they think: it is
possible, I can make it, I can be the NeXT Tina Turner. Or J Lo. Or Britney
Spears... These figures target very different audiences.
The US also values grades. The people in lower
classes do not have proper contact and networks. But if they got good grades at
school they get places at good universities. And if they continue their streak
at University companies go to search for them at the Universities themselves.
The best students get the best jobs, with impressive salaries. Another route is
through sports: those who excel in sports also get good places at University
and high paying jobs after graduation. In that way, some sort of equality is
achieved: people who do merits do get better places.
The issue of inequality will always continue.
There is no real solution to it. But it's effects can be tampered by making it
easier for the best people from different cultures to earn their place by hard
work and studying. In that way, wealth is also spread within that community or
in that circle, providing a concrete "map" of footsteps for other
people to follow. It might not be the solution to all people's problems, but at
least it provides some hope. Like building channels or bridges between different
cultures and social classes. Clearly the "American model" cannot be copied by other countries, since US development also responds to historical and cultural reasons. Which is why it is important to compare models that can offer a CULTURAL match.
Cristian Bøhnsdalen
CMO/CFO & Co-Founder @ITRevolusjonen
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario