Peak 036 Rich Poor

However, the emergence of true private ownership is like this: the rich say to the poor, 'Let's unite to protect the weak from oppression, restrain ambitious people, and ensure that everyone can possess what belongs to them.'.

In fact, to ensure the current situation of private ownership, this is the first stage of the origin of inequality that we are talking about, which is the formulation of laws. How can we ensure that everyone can possess what belongs to them? Of course, we need to pass laws, which can protect our private property from infringement. Therefore, this is actually the formulation of laws.

So, establish a set of rules that do not favor anyone and can be followed by everyone to maintain justice and peace. So, this rule is that the strong and the weak can equally fulfill their mutual obligations in order to compensate for the shortcomings of fate to some extent.

The starting point for the formulation of such laws is to embody the principle of equality. From the perspective of institutional construction, it seems to be to ensure equality, which means that everyone has their own property equally and is protected equally from being plundered or encroached upon by others.

In this sense, it appears to be an equal right. However, this equal law is ensuring the reality of inequality, which is where the problem lies.

So, this also shows that the initial form of inequality was actually a way of inequality from the beginning. So, after the establishment of the law, the state is established, and after obtaining the state, the rule of the poor over the rich is legalized, so their property is protected by the political and legal system.

The second stage is the construction of an official system, which is the establishment of state power. The new constitution tells people that everyone must abide by the provisions of the law. Our law is agreed upon by everyone, and you cannot violate it, so that everyone can accept the law in an equal way.

After the law was established, having the law alone was not enough. You had to enforce the law and have people abide by it. If someone violated the law, the law would punish the offender. Who would supervise the punishment? Who will execute it again?

Then there is political power. So, the establishment of the official system is actually the second stage of unequal development, which requires the establishment of the system and the establishment of political power. So, only in this way can property be protected by the political and legal system.

People signed contracts with the intention of establishing a public power and legal system to ensure social stability. However, as the law consolidates ownership, it also makes extortion a legitimate right.

Why?

Because the formulation of laws is not as people imagine, it is a common agreement signed between people, it is not a completely equal agreement. Superficial equality, but it maintains an unequal reality. Therefore, in this sense, only wealthy people have the position of law enforcers. Therefore, it is impossible for ordinary poor people to become government officials or officials to enforce the law. Therefore, law enforcers must be wealthy.

Law enforcers must be wealthy, as it is established through such means. That is to say, it is the wealthy who force the poor to sign this law, and of course, the execution of the law must be carried out by the wealthy. This is the concept. So, since it is enforced by the wealthy, they have the right to demand more power according to legal provisions, and this more power becomes an excuse for extortion.

So, 'cracking down on landlords and dividing land' is a revolution of the poor. No country is completely controlled by the poor, and all countries are controlled by the rich. We are also like this today, where the wealthy control the political power, not the poor. The poor cannot control the political power, and speaking on behalf of the poor is always suppressed by the dominant force of this society.

In this case, if the legal provisions establish such rights, the wealthy or new ruling forces will eventually transform their legitimate rights into a form of authoritarian rule.

So, it is such a historical evolution process, which is called the third stage.

With the development of political and legal systems, power gradually became fixed, as people began to entrust public power to private individuals, creating conditions for individuals to own the state.  

Let's take a look at these three stages of unequal development, which is not an idealized social system constructed in "The Social Contract". This is Rousseau's examination of social reality, and he found that inequality in social reality evolves through three historical stages.

It can explain very well why in real life and institutional arrangements, it is always a minority ruling over the majority.

According to Rousseau's "Social Contract Theory", the idea is different. "Social Contract Theory" should be that sovereignty belongs to the people, and the people have sovereignty. That is Social Contract Theory. However, in "The Origin of Inequality", he is more of an explanation of the social reality at that time, which is about the three stages of unequal development.

Rousseau said that this is a vertex of inequality, the ultimate point that closes a circle, but it meets the starting point from which we start. Why?

Because all individuals here are equal because they are all equal to zero. Subjects have no other laws besides their own will, and rulers have no other rules besides their own desires.

That is to say, in the third stage, all subjects are equal, but subjects and rulers are unequal because we are all the same. In a monarchy, there is only one person who is subordinate to all the people, and the "all the people are subordinate" people are the common people, who are equal to each other.

We started talking about equality, but in this sense, equality means that every subject and every commoner is equal. However, the relationship between commoners and rulers is unequal.

Why do they meet the starting point in this strange cycle of history?

It is because, at the beginning, an unequal reality was concealed in an equal way. The law is an equal way, so the final result also appears to be equal. You see, all people are equal.

So, this is about a historical cycle, called the cycle of history. This idea is very profound, as it guided later Hegelian dialectics, which of course originated from Fichte and Schelling. Because the dialectical ideas provided by Fichte and Schelling are purely conceptual dialectics, while in Hegel they are logical and historical dialectics. In Fichte and Schelling's defense, they propose that all starting points are endpoints, and endpoints always return to the starting point in order to truly become an endpoint, which is a cycle.

So, later Hegel said that the development of history is ultimately a cyclical process, and this cycle is not the cycle of real history, it is a logical cycle.

We can find the intersection of its starting and ending points through logical argumentation, so it is a logical cycle, not a real cycle.

However, in reality, we have many ideas, including our social ideals, that can often find their true starting point at any time. Rousseau's ideas are precisely the combination of the starting point of our thinking on this issue and the final result we achieve.

It is the combination of the starting point and the result, but the process of this combination actually reflects a history of social inequality, which is not about equality but rather inequality. The surface equality conceals the real inequality, so this is exposing the hypocritical side of the bourgeoisie if we analyze it in the past, because when you all say equality, it is actually inequality.

However, it is not easy for ordinary people to recognize this. Ordinary people are equal before the law, so equality belongs to everyone, not just individuals. In fact, the truth he accepts is not true equality, but inequality.

The reason why they are said to be equal is because they are all equal to 0. Equality means everyone is the same. Being equal to 0 means returning to the starting point. I didn't get anything, and in the end, what I really got were the rich, the rulers, and the people in power. They truly gained, while the poor still gained nothing.

However, once this historical cycle is reached, things will change.

So, Rousseau constantly combined his ideological ideas with the interpretation of reality. He was not a purely speculative thinker, although many of his ideas were not completely consistent with the reality of society. However, he tried to combine the interpretation of ideas with the interpretation of reality.

So, this statement is very challenging and quite threatening to the rulers at that time. So, things are transformed into opposites. Therefore, he said, 'The uprising that ends with the execution or abolition of the tyrant, and the arbitrary handling of the lives and property of the subjects by the tyrants the day before, are equally legal. Because violence supports him, violence also overthrows him.'.

So, in ancient China, it was said, 'Water can carry, but it can also capsize a boat.',

Don't always think about using power to prey on the people. One day, this people will also prey on you and overthrow you. That's all. So, this is a very revolutionary idea, very challenging and threatening to the regime at that time.