an addendum to article I of "on wage slavery and notions of socialism"

An important notion as to the use of language on “equality” is missing from the early part of Article I, so the following will serve as a second draft of the beginning of said Article:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

Article I

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (Article 1). The Declaration also recognizes “the inherent dignity and… equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,” suggesting such things are “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (preamble). Our own Declaration of Independence here in America as asserts that “all men are created equal” or at least suggests that we believe as much. But, it is important to note that in utilizing such language, Thomas Jefferson, a noted slaveholder, did not mean to suggest that, literally, all men are created equal. Rather, in the parlance of the Old World, the landed gentry were created equal, or more precisely, the white, property-owning males were created equal, and some more equal than others. But, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is an adoptee, has no such limitation. Indeed, even here, we have moved past the intention of the language in our Declaration of Independence to a more cosmopolitan understanding; with our 14^th Amendment, with Supreme Court decisions like that in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, with the Civil Rights Act, we have progressed beyond the presumption in that little word “all” and have come to a place where, perhaps, we can actually mean it literally.

John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Government described the state of nature as one of “equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” He does go on to limit his notions of who should be equal in specifically dismissing the atheist, but, again, as with our Declaration of Independence, let us assume that the original intent and the theoretical basis of the language have separated as we have advanced. Locke suggested that we are all “born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties” and that we “should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection.” With the existence of the State, we come easily to the point where such lack of subordination or subjection is inherently impossible. Not because of racist or propertied-favoring or classist (necessarily) distinctions, but because the very notion of civilization—taken as constructed under Locke’s idea of the Social Construct or taken as something perhaps more sinister (even a warlord requires administrators and organization having undertaken charge of a population with enough numbers)—requires that some be subordinated by others, that some be in charge, some make the decisions and some simply follow along to get along.

The rest shall remain as it for now, though of course when all these pieces are done, there will be much editing necessary to produce a cohesive whole.